Closes the one MAJOR from /trekreview of S3.6 (verdict WARN): the
user-facing NOK-string formatter had only an isinstance(...,str) check,
so a regression (wrong divmod, dropped padding, øre/kr transposition,
or non-breaking-space → ASCII) would ship a wrong money figure with the
suite green. Adds a load-bearing value-level test (thousands grouping,
sub-100-øre padding, negative-sign branch) pinning the actual Norwegian
\xa0-separated formatting; verified red under a divmod(...,1000) mutation
and reverted. Suite 333 passed / 4 skipped, ruff+mypy clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0145ZKPLMVeqM47z2jxxokym
The neutrality guard now covers BOTH shared specs explicitly (a new spec
file is never guarded implicitly), and a new structure test pins the
ingest spec's normative skeleton incl. the verdict-layer reservation and
the explicit-timestamp field. Proven RED against a throwaway copy with a
framework name injected and with a required section dropped; field-level
cross-check vs contract code arrives with the I2 contracts.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AaQCFnfsh3tfq1VfzdJpoi
One call-time resolver (env PORTFOLIO_SHARED_ROOT, default the in-repo
shared/) consumed by both MAF-side readers of the shared core:
persona._example_path() (the _EXAMPLE_PATH monkeypatch seam is kept) and
simulation._default_bundle_dir() (replaces the _BUNDLE_DIR module global).
De-risks the S4 extraction: re-pointing the commons becomes an env var,
not a code change. Override test proves the marker follows a tmp copy of
the whole shared tree; both detach points proven RED. Suite 155->157.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01AaQCFnfsh3tfq1VfzdJpoi
Author shared/method-spec.md: the 8-step loop (normative, RFC-2119), the
verdict JSON contract incl. the id-minting algorithm and the chosen conflict
semantics, the inbox/outbox folder contract, the fail-closed promotion-gate
semantics, the IR projection + golden suite as the only ground truth (incl.
the reproducible Monte Carlo procedure), and the budget/stop, provenance and
startup-contract requirements — every normative claim cross-checked against
the load-bearing tests/code. The sibling implementation builds from this spec
alone.
Load-bearing trio (tests/test_method_spec_loadbearing.py, persona-trio
style): required structure, a name-shaped framework-neutrality guard over the
spec + the persona skill tree, and a cross-check-completeness test driven
from the REAL artifacts and the REAL verdict serializer (red on code drift).
All three detach points proven RED (missing file / framework name / dropped
field). shared/README.md: the "(planned)" line replaced with the real entry.
Suite 152 -> 155 passed / 4 skipped; ruff check+format clean; mypy src 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
