A run commissioned to evaluate three approaches wrote ONE proposal artefact, so
only the approach it selected could ever receive a verdict. The other two were
evaluated, reported in the settlement, and then taught the learning loop nothing.
The defect class is a key collapse, and it had two halves — fixing either alone
leaves it intact:
* the WRITER wrote one pair per run, so the non-selected approaches never existed
on disk;
* the READER (hitl._read_outbox_proposals) joins proposal to outcome on the
run_id FIELD read from file CONTENT, never the filename. Three files sharing
one run_id collapse onto one dict key, last write wins — so widening only the
filename would have produced three artefacts and still one pending row. This is
the S3.2 collision class: two rows under one key silently become one.
Artefacts are now keyed {run_id}-{approach_id}-*.json AND carry approach_id in the
payload; the join key is (run_id, approach_id). Two properties make them genuinely
judgeable rather than merely present:
* verdict_id is minted per approach (verdicts.verdict_key, the S3.2 content hash)
— reusing the run's single id would let one delivered verdict clear all three
from the queue;
* provenance.validator_decision follows ITS OWN approach — the run's stamp would
report a rejected candidate as validated, and nothing downstream could correct it.
verdicts.verdict_key is public so a run can stamp the key a verdict WILL arrive
under without capturing a decision nobody has made; it delegates to _mint_id
rather than restating the hash (the (p) rule: one keying rule, one copy).
The per-approach set REPLACES the run-level pair rather than joining it — the
selected approach is already among them, and writing both would count it twice in
hitl pending. The selected one carries the run's final outcome, so the outbox can
never disagree with the RunResult; the others carry the validator's verdict, the
only falsifier that ran on them.
mandate.py is deliberately untouched: hanging a ValidatedProposal off a coverage
row would drag validator — and pulp — into a module kept to pydantic+stdlib for
D7 portability, so _evaluate_mandate returns the evaluated outcomes alongside.
Ran it, not just tested it: a real CLI run wrote six artefacts and hitl pending
listed three rows. It also showed the honest edge — three approaches that produce
an identical candidate share one content-hash key, so one verdict settles all
three. That is correct (they were one candidate), and it is now documented.
Load-bearing MEASURED (tests/test_a5_per_approach_artifacts_loadbearing.py) against
the whole 750-test suite, five mutations all red: detach the per-approach writer ·
drop approach_id from the join key · reuse the run's verdict id · reuse the run's
provenance stamp · widen the filename but not the payload. Control: on a full
detach exactly the 5 new tests fail and 745 pre-existing ones stay green — the
no-mandate path is inert, and writes neither the filename segment nor the field.
Docs: bestille-en-kjoring.md (what the commissioner gets) + ekspert-svar.md (what
the expert's queue looks like, and that "rejected" is the validator's verdict on
the numbers, never a professional judgement of the idea).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VtRd8y1PDPGwkrRXFhubqr
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
