Samme drift-klasse som økt 4, 5 og 6 hver for seg fant, og derfor lukket i SAMME
økt som arbeidet: planen er dokumentet operatøren følger onsdag under tidspress.
Grep-passen (økt 4s mottiltak) over "runbook|P4.5" fant FEM levende steder, ikke
ett:
- P4.5-blokka: ☐ -> ✔ SKREVET, med amendementet som forklarer hvorfor gaten
("VED frysen ... så den matcher frosset output") dekker målingene og ikke
forfatterskapet
- ons-12-raden: "skriv runbooken" -> "FYLL UT runbooken", med utfyllings-gaten
- Spor 2 (§0): mandat-setningen merket ✔ — den sto der som en PLASSHOLDER for en
beslutning, ikke som en beslutning
- Spor 2-oppsummeringen linje 63: "VED frysen" -> "SKREVET man 10., FYLLES UT"
- man-10-raden: nytt punkt (7)
Ett premiss rettet i samme pass: raden sa "SEKS ØKTER" og er nå syv.
Historiske oppføringer står urørt med vilje: I5-registeret i §6 og frys-blokkas
"runbook (commit Y)" beskriver beslutninger og en sekvens som fortsatt stemmer —
onsdag committer fortsatt den utfylte runbooken som Y.
Tabell-integritet verifisert etter redigering: hver kalenderrad har nøyaktig tre
usiterte pipes; de tre escapede på ons-12-raden er K1-kommandoens og er
uendret. docs/-gaten grønn (10 passed).
Runbooken var gatet til "VED frysen onsdag". Gaten gjelder hashen X og verbatim
output-utdrag — ikke forfatter-dømmekraften. Planens egen onsdags-regel er at
dagen skal MÅLE og UTFØRE, ikke avgjøre; en runbook skrevet fra bunnen på en
enveis-dag under tidspress er nøyaktig det den regelen forbyr. Derfor to-trinns
med vilje: alt kjennbart nå, tre målte felt onsdag.
Samler de fire spredte kildene I5 navnga (demo-uke-plan §1 · innholdsgate §5
JA-varianten · P4 pkt. 4 · §0 Spor 2) og forankrer hver setning i en LINJE i det
pinnede transkriptet, så operatøren finner stedet uten å lete.
MANDAT-SETNINGEN ER SKREVET. Den sto i Spor 2 som "én muntlig setning" og fantes
ikke som tekst noe sted — en udraftet setning til en live demo. Nå formulert mot
docs/bestille-en-kjoring.md: bestillingen styrer hva som VURDERES, aldri hva som
GODKJENNES.
UTFYLLINGEN ER GJORT TIL EN SJEKKET STEG, ikke en husket. Tre placeholders med
greppbar form, og grep-en er SELV-SIKKER: monsteret '<<[A-ZÆØÅ-]*>>' matcher
ikke sin egen tekst (målt: 3 treff, ingen av dem kommandolinjene). Et uutfylt
felt er samme drift-klasse som plan-radene økt 4, 5 og 6 hver for seg fant.
VEDLEGGET FELLER TRE STATE-PREMISSER. Alle tre "scene-kosmetiske" punkter er
målt mot det pinnede transkriptet, og INGEN er synlige:
- 23700 NOK/aar: rationale er 389 tegn, beløpet står ca. tegn 370, demoen
klipper på 300 -> linja ender "pga. overes…". grep -c "23700" -> 0.
STATEs "printes fortsatt ordrett" var et premiss, ikke en måling.
- 0.82 hører til bygg-goldenen, ikke veglys. grep -c -> 0.
- docs/ekspert-svar.md leses ikke av demoen.
Torsdagen slipper altså tre setninger den var fortalt at den måtte bære.
CHANGELOG-DATOEN GJORT TIL EN MÅLING: sjekklista sier "les datoen på dagen"
(date +%F), ikke det forhåndsskrevne 2026-08-12 — samme premiss-klasse som
hashen planen allerede nekter å skrive ned.
Frysen er IKKE flyttet fram. Tirsdagen er tom og fristet, men onsdag er en
dato-beslutning på en enveis-handling (tag + frys), og risikoen den ville hedget
er allerede retirert: økt 6 målte samme kjøresti grønn, og d0e8bb0..HEAD er
dokumenter alene.
Målt: 810 passed / 4 skipped uendret. docs/-gaten passert via datert sti.
Kjørestien urørt.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011GtvZy6hn3k2iTFGjRVzLi
Planen er dokumentet operatøren FØLGER onsdag under tidspress, og etter
persona-pullen instruerte tir-11-raden fortsatt om en betinget subtree pull med
abortsti og 18:00-frist — arbeid som er utført og pushet. Samme drift-klasse økt
4 felte, så samme mottiltak: én grep-pass FØR redigering
(`persona|kontorbygg|tilsvarende anlegg|I4|18:00` over `docs/plan/` +
CHANGELOG), amendering med attribusjon (§6-mønsteret), aldri omskriving.
Grep-passen fant FIRE steder, ikke ett — som er hele grunnen til å kjøre den:
- tir-11-raden: betinget pull-instruks → **TOM, gå rett på onsdag**, med
utfallet og de fire målingene som lukket den
- frys-blokkas X-note: «lander tirsdagens persona-pull, flytter X seg» →
pullen ER landet (`d0e8bb0`); X leses fortsatt av `git rev-parse HEAD` etter
grønn prøve, aldri skrevet ned her
- P4 pkt. 1s fersk-klon-måling: sto på `c9787cf`, altså to commits bak etter
pullen. HOLDBARHETEN sagt eksplisitt i stedet for underforstått — delta er
prosa i `shared/` + regenerert fasit, `pyproject.toml`/`uv.lock` MÅLT urørt,
så målingen står; onsdagens generalprøve ×2 er bekreftelsen
- P3s I4-abortsti (i `<details>`): stemplet HISTORISK, med den ene målingen
verdt å bære videre — den harde reset-formen blokkeres av hooken, `--keep`
slipper igjennom
CHANGELOG: én Changed-linje for persona-formuleringen, slik at onsdagens
`[Unreleased]` → `[1.0.0]`-stempel ikke beskriver en artefakt-tekst som har
endret seg siden. Beslutningen tas her, ikke på en enveis-dag.
Tabell-integritet verifisert (pipe-telling; ons-12-radens seks er tre escaped
`\|` i grep-kommandoen, urørt). `test_doc_constant_sync_loadbearing` grønn.
Kalenderen: man 10. er nå SEKS økter.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017og6HMcP1WQcABRDogUMfx
Subtree-pullen (71b7b66) landet commons' domene-nøytrale formulering i
persona-artefaktets `rationale` («i kontorbygg» → «i tilsvarende anlegg»;
commons 73136eb — én fil, én linje, verifisert av OSS mot commons/main FØR
pullen). Linja printes ordrett i demoens Steg 7, så det pinnede transkriptet
sto rødt i pullens egen commit. Mellomtilstanden er uunngåelig: squash-commiten
kan ikke amendes (den bærer git-subtree-trailerne pullen leser neste gang).
Regenereringen er en RE-MÅLING, ikke en kopiering (testens egen docstring:
«whoever regenerates re-takes those measurements»). Den nye linja ble PREDIKERT
fra det innkommende artefaktet FØR pullen, og er byte-identisk med det
programmet faktisk skrev. Prediksjonen var bærende: `_clip(..., 300)` kapper på
fast bredde, og byttet er +8 tegn, så HALEN flytter seg også («overestimerte …»
→ «overes…»). Uten en nedskrevet prediksjon kan en regenerering ikke skille den
forventede forskyvningen fra drift — den ville bare vært «kopier det demoen
skriver nå».
MÅLT:
- rød-settet var NØYAKTIG én test (809 passed / 1 failed / 4 skipped) — ingen
annen assertion matcher en delstreng av `rationale`; commons advarte om
nøyaktig den klassen, og prediksjonen var at kun goldenen ville falle
- gammel vs ny fasit: KUN linje 32
- K1 distinkt 8 (linjer 9 — kjent, dokumentert avvik) · K2 hypotese #1 REJECTED
2 100 000 mot P90 1 769 915 → VALIDATED 445 500, samme kandidat · K6
selv-identitet: to kjøringer byte-identisk stdout, eneste stderr-diff er
po-sim-suffikset · K8 bygg-energi-mikro + nav-golden-* uendret · 61/4 linjer
- stderr-goldenen URØRT · `pyproject.toml` og `uv.lock` urørt av pullen, så
fersk-klon-målingen (P4 pkt. 1) står — delta er prosa i `shared/` + fasit
- 810 passed / 4 skipped · ruff check + ruff format + mypy rene
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_017og6HMcP1WQcABRDogUMfx
Første form listet kjørestien positivt (src/ tests/ shared/ pyproject.toml
uv.lock). En slik gate er blind for alt den ikke rakk å regne opp: målt på
1522e2a^..1522e2a rapporterer den to filer og slipper README.md OG CLAUDE.md
rett igjennom, mens eksklusjonsformen tar alle fire. På en enveis-dag skal en
gate feile lukket — en ny fil skal trippe den, ikke passere fordi ingen forutså
den.
Unntakene er nøyaktig det onsdagen skal skrive: docs/ (runbooken) og
CHANGELOG.md (stemples i samme trekk som taggen, så en gate som dekket den kunne
aldri blitt grønn). STATE.md er gitignorert og kan ikke dukke opp i en diff.
Begge de opprinnelige målingene re-kjørt på begge former med samme svar —
c255662..HEAD gir fire filer, a41272d..HEAD tomt. Funnet i advisor-review.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LVmQfqWWEVTQnv7PkuLE9U
«FRYS» hadde ingen operasjonell definisjon (40 treff i åtte plandokumenter; eneste
forsøk er demo-uke-planen linje 93, som er en regel, ikke en handling). Sekvensen er
prøve (X) → runbook (Y) → stempel+tag (Z), så taggen lander på Z mens prøven målte X.
Frysen er nå to kommandoer: noter X, og kjør frys-gaten før taggen. Gaten er målt at
den diskriminerer — c255662..HEAD gir fire filer (versjonssynken landet ETTER
generalprøve nr. 0), a41272d..HEAD gir tomt. CHANGELOG.md bevisst utenfor gaten.
P4 lukket: onsdagsraden sa «P4 re-målt» uten å si hva. Målt var det fersk-klon-
kriteriet (pkt. 1), stående på ab7f45a — elleve commits tilbake, før subtree-pullen,
P3/GO, det pinnede transkriptet, innholdsgaten (ny runtime-dep) og versjonssynken
(endret uv.lock). Re-målt på c9787cf: uv sync exit 0 med treet urørt, 810 passed /
4 skipped, ruff+mypy rene, demo-stdout byte-identisk mot goldenen, 61/4 linjer,
K1 distinkt 8.
Onsdagen har dermed fire steg, alle kjørbare. Null kodeendring.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LVmQfqWWEVTQnv7PkuLE9U
Planen er dokumentet operatøren følger onsdag under tidspress. Den instruerte
fortsatt om en beslutning som ble felt 08-10, og på TO steder — nøyaktig
drift-klassen der en retting i én fil etterlater den i en annen:
- §0 S1.c-raden: «tag v1.0.0 på begge remotes» → taggen går til `origin` ALENE.
Felt med målingen som felte den (open/main = 520e741 = v0.1.0; 26 commits =
53 filer / 6087 innsettelser; seks plandokument-beslutninger, én åpen sak +
fire aldri vurdert). Amendert i stedet for omskrevet, per §6-mønsteret.
- P4 pkt. 1s fresh-clone-notat: «publisering dit er S1.c onsdag» → korrigert,
flyttet til P5-vinduet.
Bokføring i samme pass (planens egen regel, linje 10):
- P2/S1.b ☐ → ✔ (2026-08-09, c255662), både overskrift og Spor 1-tabellen;
JA-varianten i ærlighets-teksten markert som den som gjelder.
- Kalenderen: man 10. = tre økter (var: kun generalprøven) · tir 11. = P3 er
gjort søndag, tirsdag er commons-svaret eller tom · ons 12. = frysesekvensen
i rekkefølge, med distinkt-tellingen (8, ikke 9) og taggen sist.
«ETT trekk» på tag-dagen er MÅLT inn i dokumentet, ikke antatt: `## [Unreleased]`
er verbatim og unik (1 treff, kun to `## `-overskrifter), ingen link-refs å
følge med. Sto den to steder, ble frysedagens ene trekk improvisasjon.
Null kodeendring; ingen test rørt.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01QLpSfvCgBLmc3tPRMnr1JA
Forskuttert fra onsdag kveld, fordi den delen ikke er frys-gatet: kun taggen er.
Raden bærer nå de tre tingene målingen avgjorde — hvorfor overskriften står på
[Unreleased], hvorfor uv lock måtte kjøres eksplisitt og diffes før noen test, og
at fire versjonssteder ER alle fire.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ue1AnPZYsC9Tk7e5Tyv8Fv
Version 1.0.0 across the four sites that carry it — pyproject.toml, __init__.py,
uv.lock, test_smoke.py. Measured that these are the only four: README carries no
version badge, and CHANGELOG's `## [0.1.0]` is history rather than a bump site.
The heading stays `[Unreleased]`. STATE authorises the CHANGELOG CONTENT now and
holds the TAG until after Wednesday's freeze, so stamping `## [1.0.0] - <date>`
today would be a future-dated claim about an event that has not happened — and
one to rewrite if the dress rehearsal fails or the freeze slips. `pyproject` at
1.0.0 with `[Unreleased]` populated is the release-prep state, not an
inconsistency; nothing machine-reads the CHANGELOG (measured). The global
versjonssync rule is read as CONTENT, not heading. Tag day is then one atomic
move: rename the heading, stamp the date, tag.
The re-lock was the hazard, and it was gated rather than assumed. Bumping the
version stales `uv.lock`, and the next `uv run` would have re-locked it
invisibly against a RANGE dependency (`agent-framework-core>=1.9.0,<2`) — while
the two ExperimentalWarning lines are pinned byte-for-byte in the stderr golden,
and STATE's own okf note records that a bare sync is enough for a guard to stop
guarding with no local diff. So: bump, then `uv lock` EXPLICITLY, then diff
before any test ran. The diff is the single `portfolio-optimiser` version line;
agent-framework-core, llm-ingestion-okf (v0.3.2) and llm-ingestion-guard
(v0.3.4) are untouched, and uv.lock was re-checked AFTER the suite to confirm no
silent re-lock.
CHANGELOG prose for the six feat commits `[Unreleased]` did not cover — it
carried only Step 5 and the scripted registry. Console entry points and the
golden transcript are Added; the Step-7 inbox, the anchored walkthrough, the
stderr damping and the derived provenance sentence are Changed, scoped as the
OFFLINE SIMULATION rather than framework runtime, since they change what the
walkthrough exercises and not the library's behaviour. The content gate is
Security, and carries its opt-in qualifier: `materialize` stays ungated by
design and `materialize_gated` is asked for by name — an entry claiming "ingest
now scans content before writing" without that clause would overclaim, and it
sits next to the sentence read on stage Thursday. A Notes line names the two
open boundaries (ingest stamp spec divergence, D7 mirroring) so 1.0.0 reads as a
stable surface rather than a finished programme.
Measured, not asserted: 810 passed / 4 skipped unchanged · ruff + mypy clean (31
source files) · no `0.1.0` remaining outside .venv/shared · and the demo RUN, not
just tested — stdout byte-identical to tests/golden/demo-transcript.stdout, exit
0, 61 stdout / 4 stderr lines, matching dress rehearsal nr. 0. The version string
appears nowhere in either golden (0 hits), so the bump could not move the fasit.
Two STATE premises corrected by measurement: 24 commits since v0.1.0, not 23;
and eight feat commits exist since the tag, of which six were undocumented.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ue1AnPZYsC9Tk7e5Tyv8Fv
Prøven kjørte mot LEVERT VEGLYS-FV-SOER, ikke den forankrede reserven planen
forutsatte: P3 falt to døgn før fristen, så prøven målte demoinnholdet selv.
Det er en strengere prøve enn planlagt — reserven validerer mekanikk, aldri
presentasjon — og reserve-stien er fortsatt målt, i suiten.
Alt grønt, null kodeendring: golden-diffen tom for begge kjøringene, K6
selv-identitet tom på stdout med kun po-sim-suffikset ulikt på stderr,
810 passed / 4 skipped, ruff og mypy rene, goldens uendret.
Ett avvik, og det ligger i kriteriets bokstav: §5 pkt. 1 teller
`grep -cE "^ *Steg [1-8]"` = 8, men P1/S1.a ga Steg 7 to merkede linjer, én
per tidsskala, så tellingen gir 9. Åtte distinkte steg står — intensjonen er
oppfylt. Kriteriet rettes ikke her: en gate justert i samme økt som den
feiler er ikke lenger en gate. Onsdagens generalprøve ×2 bruker
distinkt-tellingen, og §5 pkt. 1 rettes etter frysen.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ATCeqRyvdL9qmk34o6HUCa
Planens §3 sa at `ingest.materialize` er repoets ENE skrivepunkt på Door A, og
det premisset ble felt av måling FØR bygging: `materialize` er en ren delegasjon
til pinnet llm_ingestion_okf v0.3.2s `materialize_bundle`, som stager i minnet og
utfører sin egen disk-fase. Det finnes ingen callback mellom de to, så en gate
plassert der kunne bare kjørt ETTER at bytene landet — en opprydding, ikke en gate.
Sømmen ble i stedet kopier bundelen → materialiser inn i kopien → skann det som
ble generert → publiser eller forkast. Kopien er bærende, ikke bekvemmelighet:
bibliotekets §3 eierskaps-skann, kollisjonsgaten mot kuratert innhold og §6
index-merge leser alle den EKSISTERENDE bundelen. Staging i tom katalog mister
alle tre og publiserer en bundle uten kuraterte naboer — datatap forkledd som
sikkerhetsfiks.
De fire §4-beslutningene, tatt og målt: (1) ingen av guardens to preset —
Origin.EXTERNAL/AUTOMATIC, fordi trust_for utleder policy fra origin alene og
PRESET_USER_UPLOAD bærer en quarantine-semantikk Door A ikke har; (2) utfall per
BUNDLE, diagnostikk per DOKUMENT — delvis publisering ville etterlatt bundle +
index som svarer til intet manifest, men import_bundle itererer forbi første
avvisning; (3) Report til log.md, aldri konsept-frontmatter, der fire golden-suiter
pinner bytene; (4) mypy-override OG adapter, siden override alene gjør sømmen
type-blind i stedet for type-sikker.
`materialize` forblir ugatet med vilje — goldenene pinner den, og en kaller som
vil ha gaten ber om den ved navn.
Fem mutasjoner alle røde + grønn kontroll (hele suiten, ~120 s hver): detach
gaten · la den fyre ETTER publisering · Origin.INTERNAL · tom staging-katalog ·
rapporter kun første avvisning.
Målingen felte en VAKUØS test først: en hard injeksjon scorer fail_secure under
BEGGE trust-tierene, så Origin.INTERNAL-mutasjonen lot alle tre avvisningstestene
stå grønne — beslutning 1 så dekket ut uten å være testet. Båndet der tieren
faktisk avgjør er høy-entropi-innhold (quarantine_review vs warn), og testen ble
skrevet mot nøyaktig det før mutasjonen ble re-målt. Mutasjon 4 ble på sin side
felt av KUN én test; 809 andre merket ikke at bundle-kopien forsvant.
Laveste disposition er `warn`, ikke `allow` — `allow` finnes ikke i guarden. En
gate skrevet mot == allow ville avvist hvert dokument som noensinne ingestes.
Kriterium 5 står: demo-stdout er byte-identisk med tests/golden/demo-transcript.stdout,
målt både i suiten og ved eksplisitt kjøring. shared/ er urørt.
801 -> 810 passed / 4 skipped.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01DDu94KoyxAmhJsG2n63X8Q
Kriterium 6 er selv-identitet: to kjøringer av en regredert demo er like enige som
to av en riktig. Fasiten forlater derfor prosessen. stdout pinnes ORDRETT (og er
dermed demoens abortsti); stderr normaliseres på nøyaktig to MÅLTE miljø-spann —
site-packages-prefikset og temp-katalogen — med po-sim- holdt synlig, fordi det er
en egenskap ved programmet og ikke ved miljøet. Pinnet stderr = fire linjer.
Kontrollen som forbyr at masken vokser er load-bearing: en droppende normaliserer
med fasiten regenerert under seg holder BEGGE likhets-testene grønne.
Pkt. 4: planens forhåndsskrevne frø-setning sa «én av de TO tidligere dommene».
Målt mot levert VEGLYS-bundle henter Kjøring B TRE — én fulgte med kunnskapsbasen,
to er demoens egne, én per tidsskala. Splitten avledes derfor fra kjøringen; en
håndskrevet «én av tre» ville vært den andre kopien som drifter.
Fem mutasjoner alle røde + grønn kontroll (hele suiten hver gang): ett byte i en
stdout-linje · detach dempingen · over-normaliser stderr · literal splitt · detach
frø-setningens print. Byte- og detach-mutasjonene ble fanget av KUN golden-testen;
den literale splitten av KUN skille-testen.
793 -> 801 passed / 4 skipped.
Abortstien fulgt i rekkefølge, kriterium 8 målt to uavhengige veier, ingen reset.
Måletallene som avgjorde: P90 = 1 769 915, overdrivelsen 2 100 000 over begge terskler,
10 %-prøven mot LEVERT baseline feller i stage 0. Fem mutasjoner røde.
Planteksten slik den sto før utførelse er beholdt i en <details>-blokk — NO-GO-grenen er
død tekst nå, men reserven er fortsatt abortstien og skal kunne leses.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BUjfw4eJdwwnqHSXhfcY6i
P3 a-c lukket. Pullen hentet commons 002f000+27cdce9: kriterium 8 grønt (nav-goldens
byte-uendret, målt både med git diff og shasum) og suiten uendret 785 — ingen abort.
Retningen på tallene er SNUDD (P3 b): manus-registerets kostlinjer er skrevet FRA
shared/examples/veglys-fv-soer/cost-baseline.json, ikke ved siden av den, og
baseline_from_scripted_candidate brukes ikke på denne stien — main() leser levert fil.
Overdrivelsen 2100000 er valgt utenfor commons' tall-inventar: målt fraværende fra
bundelen og over målt P90 1769915 (deres anslag var ~1770000). 600000/900000 ville
klarert gaten og aldri utløst Steg 5.
Målingen felte en defekt reserven skjulte: :g slår over i eksponentform ved 7. signifikante
siffer, så levert baseline printet 4.38615e+06. Reservens 300000 har seks siffer og nådde
aldri overgangen. _num erstatter :g begge steder.
Load-bearing MÅLT mot hele suiten, fem mutasjoner alle røde + grønn kontroll:
detach main-wiringen · reverter _num til :g · drift registeret ETT siffer (4386151 —
innenfor 5 %-toleransen, fanget av ingenting i 792 tester bortsett fra den nye) ·
sett flip_key til et token som finnes i bundelen · detach forankringen på bundle-stien.
785 -> 793 passed / 4 skipped.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BUjfw4eJdwwnqHSXhfcY6i
Punkt 5 (entry points), 2 (stderr) og 1 (fresh-clone) er merket ✔ med en UTFØRT-blokk
som bærer beslutningen og belegget, ikke bare utfallet.
Punkt 2 var øktas åpne beslutning, og den ble avgjort ved måling framfor preferanse:
rund-taks-linjene dempes, ExperimentalWarning-paret gjør det ikke — de fyrer før
simulation i det hele tatt importeres, så demping ville krevd et warnings-filter inne
i bibliotekpakken.
Punkt 3 får en konsekvens fra fresh-clone-målingen: fasiten kan ikke være literal.
De to gjenstående stderr-linjene bærer en absolutt sti inn i site-packages, som er
ulik i klon og arbeidskopi — normaliser på BÅDE den og po-sim-suffikset. Pinnet
stderr blir fire linjer, ikke to.
[skip-docs]
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01C2bxLcCRguxXzpM4priTMn
Two commands are now part of the install surface a fresh clone gets from `uv sync`:
`portfolio-optimiser` (run:main) and `portfolio-optimiser-demo` (simulation:main).
Deliberately two of five main()s — costsim/hitl/preflight stay module-invoked; every
name here is a name the freeze has to carry. Pinned against the INSTALLED distribution's
metadata, not the TOML: a [project.scripts] line that has never been synced is a claim,
not a command. Measured: stdout is byte-identical across both invocation forms.
stderr (P4 pkt. 2), the session's open decision, resolved by measurement rather than by
preference. Damped: the round-cap notice only, via a filter on the emitting logger, keyed
on the message and installed by main() — never at import, so a library consumer keeps its
own logging config. NOT damped: the two ExperimentalWarnings. They fire while the package
__init__ imports run -> agent_framework, always before simulation's own imports and under
both invocation forms, so silencing them would mean filtering warnings inside the library
package on every consumer's behalf; they are pinned in pkt. 3 instead. A console-script
wrapper was rejected for a second reason: the two forms would then write different stderr,
and a byte-fasit would pin the command rather than the program. stderr 6 -> 4 lines.
A first implementation wrapped simulation's own agent_framework import in a scoped mute.
Measurement showed it can never fire — the package __init__ has already imported
agent_framework by then — so it was removed rather than left as a green-but-dead seam.
Load-bearing MEASURED against the whole suite, five mutations all red + green control:
remove [project.scripts] · typo the target · detach the main() call · make the filter drop
everything · install the filter at import time. The typo mutation also felled a test: the
resolve-assert re-checked the expected constant against itself, and now resolves what the
distribution actually installs. 775 -> 785 passed / 4 skipped.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01C2bxLcCRguxXzpM4priTMn
The validator can reconcile a proposal against the project's actual cost lines
(S4.0 stage 0), but only when the knowledge base ships a cost-baseline.json —
and no bundle under shared/ has one. So on stage the gate reasoned only about
numbers the proposal supplied itself.
The reserve can never receive the file in shared/ (pull-only subtree, and demo
criterion 8 requires the goldens byte-unchanged). That is a placement
constraint, not an impossibility: materialize_anchored_bundle copies the bundle
and adds the file outside shared/, and the run path reads it through exactly
the seam a delivered bundle would use.
The baseline is DERIVED IN CODE from the scripted register, never typed beside
it — two sources of the same numbers drift, and drift is precisely what the
10 % probe models. On GO day the direction reverses (plan P3 b). Both scripted
replies must state the same cost lines or ValueError: were they to differ,
hypothesis #1 would be falsified by stage 0 instead of by P90 — the same
REJECTED line on screen, a different mechanism behind it.
10 % probe, measured: baseline x 1.10 -> FORKASTET at stage 0, before the
solver; corrected -> FORESLÅTT. Criterion 6 re-measured (stdout byte-identical
across two runs); stderr unchanged at 6 lines. The ONLY diff against the
un-anchored demo is the new KUNNSKAPSBASE block — everything else is
byte-identical, which is the problem: an anchoring nobody can see is one nobody
can check. Hence it is printed, and hence `provenance` is a required argument.
769 -> 775 passed.
Five mutations red + green control. The measurement failed the TEST first:
"ingen kostbaseline erklært" CONTAINS "kostbaseline erklært", and
ENERGI-TOTAL-EL already appears in the Step-2 line, so both assertions survived
the detach mutation. The two branches now share no wording.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GD6Y2Y23NZZxPYtSRoCmst
The Step-7 trace line said "lang fil-løkke" while the verdict arrived as a
function argument (`verdict_input`) — the short, in-run capture. The long loop
was tested but never exercised by the thing on stage.
An expert now drops a real verdict FILE (`write_verdict`) into an inbox between
the runs, and Run B is given `verdict_dir=`, so `run_project` merges it into the
store before the Step-1 fold.
Not done as the plan point was worded, and the difference is load-bearing:
routing the PERSONA verdict through the inbox would have put ONE marker on two
paths — Step 7 (inbox) and Step 8 (promotion) both end in Run B's prompt, so
either could carry it alone and `test_simulation_loadbearing.py`'s promotion
assertion would have stayed green with promotion detached. A second verdict with
its own marker keeps both seams independently red-able; `simulate_learning_loop`
raises when the two markers are equal. The inbox sits beside the bundle copy,
never inside it, and the id is an explicit sentinel (a minted id would collide
with the promoted verdict's, and `VerdictStore.add` is first-write-wins).
766 -> 769 passed (773 collected). Criterion 6 re-measured: stdout byte-identical
across two runs; stderr unchanged at 6 lines. Mutations measured against the full
suite, four red + a green control: detach `verdict_dir=` · point Run B at an empty
folder while the file is still written · marker set to `realization_rate: 0.82`
(measured present in the verdict seed) · marker set to `energy performance gap`
(measured present in a navigated concept file) · benign rename of the inbox dir.
Honesty limit found while measuring: the last two mutations fell on the causality
assertion, not the Run A control — generation prompts carry the debate output, not
the bundle context. The pair holds, but each assert defends a different property.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01FVYDeJ9evZicgU5r3roZVW
I1: Funn 1 was measured one directory wide; the repo ships a working S4.0
baseline fixture and run.py:516 reads it. The anchored dry-run + the 10%%
deviation test move from Tuesday to the weekend (P4 pt 0); Tuesday becomes a
re-measurement with an explicit abort path (I4: pre-pull hash, reset rule,
18:00 NO-GO). I2: stderr damping decided YES, in the weekend BEFORE pinning —
measured today stderr is six lines, one deliberately non-deterministic. I3:
[project.scripts] moves off freeze day to before the fresh-clone measurement.
I5: a demo runbook post (P4.5) at the freeze. I6: every §4 claim re-measured
today on HEAD bb3df79; the 08-09 datings were commits from 2026-08-06.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01UDHSsyMuBASJcRapddciHL
Operator directive: full week available, weekend included, new quota,
high priority. The calendar now starts Friday with P1, pulls the whole
P4 advance (fresh-clone criterion, golden transcript, stderr muting,
both honesty sentences) into the weekend against the micro reserve, and
makes Monday dress rehearsal #0 — the NO-GO outcome is fully verified
BEFORE Tuesday's GO gate, leaving Tuesday/Wednesday thin: pull+measure,
re-measure, freeze, release cut, tag.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019xhQpH4oQBaf8dxCkXuB8Z
Operator decision 2026-08-09. Track 1 (complete v1, incl. other repos):
S1.a = P1 step-7 inbox, S1.b = P2 content gate, S1.c = release cut
(1.0.0 synced in four places, CHANGELOG, [project.scripts] moved in from
P9, tag only AFTER a green dress rehearsal). Other-repo accounting is
measured: commons already ordered with the Tuesday deadline and a
reserve, okf/guard/po-claude need nothing — no new coord message. Each
post carries a named degradation so v1 stays honestly complete at every
level. Track 2 (convincing demo): P3 + P4 + rehearsal + one spoken
mandate sentence, optional stderr-noise muting before the freeze. The
O4-vs-tag conflict is flagged for the operator, not decided.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019xhQpH4oQBaf8dxCkXuB8Z
Fable-review 2026-08-09 made durable: P1-P10 in plain language with the
commands behind every number (evidence table §4). Pre-demo: step-7 inbox
wired into the walkthrough (P1), Spor B sharpening (P2), the stage-0
first-contact check on Tuesday's GO (P3), fresh-clone/stderr/golden
criteria plus two honesty sentences on Wednesday (P4). Post-demo: CLI
portfolio cap (P6), one consolidated commons amendment (P7), method
skill [Voyage] (P8), and an explicit NULL for orchestration swaps (P10).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_019xhQpH4oQBaf8dxCkXuB8Z
A prompt that lives only in a conversation dies at /clear, so it goes in the repo.
Three tracks, in the order the operator weighted them: the MAF feature set, the demo, and -- as
the actual deliverable rather than an appendix -- a ranked list of what the week's quota should
buy. Each item carries a mechanism, a hard [FØR TORSDAG]/[ETTER DEMOEN] tag, a cost in SESSIONS
rather than hours, and what would go red if the item were done. An item nothing can falsify is an
opinion, not a finding.
The measured starting points are embedded so the session does not re-derive them wrongly: two
debate agents rather than three, one orchestration in use out of the installed surface, a
hand-rolled portfolio fan-out, and a capability map organised by NEED that therefore never
compares TOPOLOGIES. The map is not stale on version -- 1.9.0/1.0.0 is what is installed -- which
matters, because "the map is old" would be the easy wrong conclusion.
The prompt carries its own discipline because Fable runs without an advisor: every figure must be
produced by a command shown beside it, and premises in STATE and in plan documents are named as
premises. This repo has measured at least three of them wrong, most recently today.
It is also forbidden from smuggling feature work in front of the demo. The demo is a hard date;
the feature set is not. Arguing otherwise is allowed -- but only out loud, with the consequence
spelled out.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XoHJCKBTjFKcjsfEQyGbzh
The demo shows "download and run". Implying you can point this at your own sources and build a
knowledge base claims three things the code does not carry -- and A5 (the code may not claim more
than it does) binds the presenter too, not just the source.
Measured first, and one measurement changed the plan: the guard is NOT v0.2 alpha. That figure came
from our own 2026-07-16 inclusion plan, which is a premise rather than a fact. It is v0.3.4, seven
published tags, `dependencies = []` -- stdlib only. Our okf pin (v0.3.2) declares no dependencies
either, so the guard is not coupled to it, and the 0.3.5-vs-0.4.0 release argument concerns the
release AFTER v0.3.4. Adoption moved from risky to tractable on that one reading.
The three claims, made precise: the demo bundle was hand-curated (honesty), the ingest path writes
unscanned (buildable), and the generic bundle factory does not exist (deferred at O1, not buildable
in four days). Two close with code, one with a sentence.
The two tracks are separated on a measured fact: `simulation.py` does not import `ingest`, so Door A
work cannot disturb what Wednesday freezes. Criterion 5 is the one that proves it -- the walkthrough
must stay byte-identical.
Four decisions are named as decisions rather than settled silently: which policy preset, fail-closed
versus flag-and-write, where the guard's report lands in provenance, and keeping `--strict`
meaningful across a seam that ships no py.typed. The honesty paragraph is written in BOTH variants
up front, so Wednesday is an observation and not a judgement call on stage.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XoHJCKBTjFKcjsfEQyGbzh
The scripted proposer answered one hard-coded pair of proposals. A second project meant a second
hand-written selector, written under demo-week time pressure -- the risk the week plan names
explicitly (§4, risk 2). It is now a registry: `ScriptedCandidate` entries selected by
`scripted_proposer`, plus `project_id` as an argument to `simulate_learning_loop`.
The open decision was WHAT identifies the candidate in the prompt blob; the plan flagged it as
unverified, so it was measured. Two prompt shapes reach the selector: the debate prompt carries the
whole bundle context, the generation prompt carries `Project: {id} - {name}` plus -- as its context
-- the debate output, which is the selector's own earlier reply. So the cost code and the measure
name are present in the generation prompt only because the script put them there; keying on them
would key the script on its own output. The project id is the one identifier both shapes carry and
the framework stamps.
Validation, never repair: no match, or more than one, raises `ScriptedCandidateError`. A default
reply would answer an unregistered project with another project's numbers, which on screen is
indistinguishable from a correct run; an ambiguous blob is a data problem that must surface at the
rehearsal rather than be decided by registry order.
Load-bearing MEASURED against the whole suite, five mutations all red plus a green control: detach
the project keying - one global flip key - fall back on an unknown project - first-match on an
ambiguous prompt - detach the `project_id` argument. The flip-key test was rewritten mid-measurement
because its first form asserted on the FIRST registry entry, where "the matched candidate's key" and
"candidates[0]'s key" coincide -- it could not separate the two implementations, and proved nothing.
766 passed / 4 skipped. Simulation still exits 0, still prints eight labelled steps, still
byte-identical across two runs.
[skip-docs] README is deliberately untouched: O4 defers the README rewrite to 14-15 August, after
the demo has produced the evidence for the level-2 claim. CLAUDE.md carries the invariant.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XoHJCKBTjFKcjsfEQyGbzh
The simulation proved the loop but printed only four of its eight steps, so a
listener could not follow what they were looking at without narration. This is
presentation only: every value printed is read off the RunResult the run already
returned -- nothing is recomputed against the bundle, nothing is inferred, and
the run path is untouched. The week plan's assumption ("seven of eight steps are
pure presentation") therefore held; no new logic was needed.
Run A walks steps 1-7, the promotion between the runs IS step 8, and Run B is
not re-numbered -- it shows only what changed, which is the marker reaching the
hypothesis prompt. Two honesty limits are visible in what is printed rather than
papered over: `retrieved` is the post-hoc proposal-keyed retrieval, not the
Step-1 fold (the marker line is what evidences the fold reaching the prompt),
and the run carries the checker's DECISION, not its prose -- the decision is
what gates, so it is what is shown.
The working-copy path moves to stderr: mkdtemp is the one non-deterministic
value in the output, and stdout must be byte-identical across runs for the dress
rehearsal's diff check. Status tokens stay VALIDATED/REJECTED in English on
purpose -- the same vocabulary as provenance.validator_decision, which the
Step-6 line prints verbatim.
Verified: `... | grep -cE "^ *Steg [1-8]"` -> 8; two runs byte-identical on
stdout; both a REJECTED and a VALIDATED line for the same candidate; suite
759 passed / 4 skipped; ruff + mypy clean.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XoHJCKBTjFKcjsfEQyGbzh
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
Seven of the eight steps already have their data in RunResult and need a print;
one does not exist at all. Putting that distinction in a table is the point of
this plan -- it turns "show all eight steps" from an unbounded week into one
build on Friday and presentation work over the weekend.
The go/no-go on Tuesday is deliberate. The content is being built in another
repo on a deadline nobody here controls, so the week is designed to survive it
not arriving rather than to hope it does. The content-keyed reply selector
lands Monday, before the content, for the same reason: a new project should
then be a data entry rather than a hand-written script under time pressure.
Honesty framing is section 1 rather than a footnote, because the demo's own
subject is a system that refuses to claim more than it proves.
The 20 claims went un-corrected, so they stand as confirmed. What the operator
actually decided were the four choices the QA exposed: hand-built example with
the factory path explicitly deferred, step 5 built and shown live, commons
ordered with a fallback, README after the demo rather than before.
Two measurements are recorded because they bound the order, not because they
are interesting: bundle_context renders every navigated file's full body, and
summary-first reading is not built -- so the full 15-30 measure library would
put 40-90k characters into every hypothesis prompt. The order is size-capped
for that reason and says so.
Also recorded: simulate_learning_loop already takes the bundle directory as a
parameter, so new content plugs into an existing seam. The cost is the scripted
replies, which are written against the LED case.
The demo-week brief was written by a session that read its way to the
intention through documents other sessions had written. Two of its frames
were overturned by the primary sources inside one conversation, so the
operator stopped planning and commissioned this: read the primary sources
directly, state the understanding back as numbered claims, and capture the
corrections where they survive.
Six gaps in the picture the brief rests on, all measured rather than argued:
- The intention has a SECOND axis that STATE's list of five primary sources
never named. review-2026-07 (F1-F14) and sesjonsplan-fase2-6 (S2.0-S5.4,
D-A-D-I, M1-M3) are where most of the repo's 31 modules come from: 20
S-numbers, 18 with hits in src/+tests/. A plan written from the five named
sources alone would describe a repo with eight steps and miss two thirds
of what is there.
- D-H's DECIDED demo path ("clone -> unzip -> factory builds -> loop runs")
is factory-dependent, and the factory (D-G/T0, `okf-toolkit`) does not
exist -- measured, not assumed. The brief's "anyone who downloads the repo
can run exactly the same" IS that path.
- The realistic example's content model is already decided (D-F): knowledge
types with required source citation, strict separation from the verdicts.
The commission to commons must reference it, not invent one.
- The demo is the programme's level-2 publishing proof (D-I), with an
honesty ceiling agreed in advance and a README update as its consequence.
- The shared spec covers the loop + ingest and NONE of the surplus: mandate,
notify, ledger, value report, cost simulation, dimension, portfolio
budget, concurrency, preflight all measure 0 mentions. The comparison is
therefore of the SPEC'd core, not of this repo.
- Step 5 is not a presentation-layer concern: `generate_via_llm` consumes
the intermediate rejection internally, and today's demo validates on the
first attempt, so the refinement never triggers. Steps 2 and 6 ARE
printable from data RunResult already carries.
Two inventory numbers spot-checked independently (759 collected; the offline
simulation re-run, output identical). Nothing here is sourced from STATE.md.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01TvjgY5NBg16D7kgQf14s6B
STATE said the release text was already written and only needed dating. Measured:
CHANGELOG.md was last touched at 9e149c6, 53 commits back, so [Unreleased]
described the repo as of S3.1 — and claimed 512 passing tests where the suite
measures 755.
For a FIRST tag there is no predecessor, so the section is not "what changed" but
"what this version is". A description that stops at S3.1 does not under-report a
delta; it misrepresents the artefact being tagged, on a public mirror.
Audited the existing bullets for claims that had gone FALSE rather than merely
stale — the class a test-count catch is only a sample of. Four checked, all still
true at HEAD: numpy confined to semretrieval.py; value_report deliberately not
wired into costsim; the simulation module and knowledge-base recipe present; the
two run modes still two.
Added, grouped by seam rather than by commit: S4.0 cost-baseline anchoring, S2.7,
S3.2 per-candidate verdict keying, S3.3 wave concurrency, S3.4 global token cap,
S2.2/S2.4 ingest transports, --scripted-replies, --mandate, --mcp-config, the
per-approach outbox, and external-call provenance. New Fixed section for the
seven correctness fixes, with a lead-in saying plainly that none of them ever
shipped. Notes gained the deployer-owns-DPIA scope boundary and the pull-only
subtree rule.
The test-suite bullet now records TWO cases where "every seam is load-bearing"
did not hold until measured, not one: the S3.1 CLI-level gap, and four of five
BudgetExceeded raise sites free to report any `observed`.
No code change. Suite measured green at 755 passed / 4 skipped after the edit.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01HVekyKcvT4ah6jnCT8R8fe
The egress declaration (Trekk B3) says what a run MAY contact. It cannot say what
it DID: after the run, nothing distinguished "the agents queried the price
register" from "the agents ignored it", and a proposal resting on an external
service should be traceable to it.
ToolCallRecorder(FunctionMiddleware) mirrors BudgetMiddleware(ChatMiddleware) one
layer down — that one observes the debate's chat calls, this one its tool calls.
It observes only: call_next is always awaited, so a trace can never alter the run
it traces. The record lands on ProvenanceStamp.external_calls, read AFTER the
debate so it is a record rather than an intention.
MEASURED, not assumed, before any of it was written: FunctionMiddleware fires for
a tool served over a REAL MCP stdio subprocess, and context.function.name carries
the BARE tool name with no server prefix. That measurement decided the design —
MAF cannot tell us which server a tool came from, so attribution comes from our own
config, and a name allowed by two servers is recorded UNATTRIBUTED (server="")
rather than credited to the first match. Naming a service that may never have been
contacted is the one place a guess must not go.
Only CONFIGURED tools are recorded. The middleware fires for every function the
agents invoke, including the in-process retrieve_cost_docs on the road path;
logging those would turn the record into a false egress claim. An empty list is a
positive statement — nothing outside this process was contacted — which is why it
is always serialized rather than omitted.
Honesty limit, written on ExternalCall itself: this is the call and its source. It
is NOT evidence that the service's answer reached the proposal, nor a verified
rendering of that answer.
One finding, and it is the reason for measuring rather than trusting green: the
road-path negative test was VACUOUS. Its scripted tool call named an argument the
tool does not declare (code vs query), MAF rejected the call before invocation, and
the test asserted an empty record against a run where no tool ran at all — green
under the exact mutation it existed to catch. It now spies on the recorder and
asserts the invocation genuinely reached it before asserting it was not recorded.
This is last session's lesson again: a scenario that cannot distinguish two
implementations proves nothing.
The tool-call double is registered in test_scripted_client_consolidation.py's
_DELEGATING_OVERRIDES — it cannot live in the reply_selector seam, which returns a
reply STRING, and a response that is not text is its whole subject.
Load-bearing MEASURED (tests/test_b4_mcp_call_trace_loadbearing.py) against the
whole 755-test suite, four mutations all red: detach the recorder from the debate
middleware · record every function invocation · attribute an ambiguous name to the
first server · stop reading the recorder into provenance. Control: a run with no
configured servers records nothing, so the empty record is a real answer and not
the only one the seam can produce.
Ran it, not just tested it: the real recorder against a real MCP server subprocess
returns ExternalCall(server='prisregister', tool='lookup_unit_price'), and a
scripted CLI run's outbox artefact carries the empty list.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01VtRd8y1PDPGwkrRXFhubqr
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
Krav 3, and the operator chose the run path explicitly: the external service must
be reachable WHILE the run works, not only when documents are ingested. Until now
the run path had one in-process tool against a local folder — and on the bundle
path the agents had no tools at all.
MAF already ships the client (MCPStdioTool / MCPStreamableHTTPTool, verified in
the pinned 1.9.0 with allowed_tools and request_timeout), so `mcp_tools.py` owns
only what MAF cannot decide for us: which servers a run may contact, which of
their tools it may call, how long it waits, and where the credential comes from.
This is a DIFFERENT seam from ingest_mcp.py on purpose — that one pulls source
documents before a run and speaks to null-argument tools. Same protocol, different
job.
Every refusal is a live hazard, not tidiness. An empty allowlist would let the far
end decide what the agents may call, so naming the tools is mandatory. A
non-positive timeout is an unbounded wait against a third party. An unknown field
is refused rather than ignored, which is also what keeps a literal secret from
being parked in the config — there is no field for one, only the NAME of an env
var. A named-but-unset credential refuses instead of calling anonymously, because
an anonymous call can succeed with the wrong scope.
Egress is declared, always. Every server and permitted tool is named in the run
announcement before the first call — including when no --mandate is given, which
was a real hole: the announcement only printed with a commission, so configuring
servers without one would have contacted third parties with nothing printed at
all. --live-dry-run still opens nothing, because the tools are entered after the
dry-run cut: the promise to stop before the first call now covers egress too.
Threaded through BOTH modes. A flag accepted in one mode and silently dropped in
the other is the defect class this CLI refuses by name.
Load-bearing MEASURED against the whole 744-test suite, four mutations all red:
build the tools but never hand them to the agents (2) · never enter the
AsyncExitStack, so they are constructed and useless (1) · never declare the egress
(2) · drop the allowlist on the built client (1).
Two live docs claimed MCP was unwired in the run path; both corrected rather than
left to rot.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01ULCqjLF61rehj5cZmdUoR3
`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
CORRECTION TO b33ea00. That commit message called the v0.4.0 behaviour a
regression that "breaks our §6 removal path". That claim is WRONG, and this
commit is the record of it — the history is not rewritten.
What v0.4.0 actually introduced is §10.2 per-manifest ownership.
`_is_ingest_owned` (materialize.py:133-160 at v0.5.0a2) compares the
`ingest_manifest` reference's STEM against the running manifest's stem, and
its own comment says why the stem rather than the whole stamp: an EDITED
manifest (new sha -> new stamp) must still reclaim the files its previous run
wrote, while a DIFFERENT manifest sharing the bundle keeps its own.
Our fixture named manifests `manifest-{len(extractions)}.json`, so "the same
manifest, edited" silently became `manifest-2.json` -> `manifest-1.json` —
two stems, i.e. two rival manifests. Refusing to overwrite was CORRECT
behaviour. The fixture was written when ownership was manifest-agnostic and
the naming was pure convenience; v0.4.0 made that convenience load-bearing.
`_write_project` now takes an optional `filename`, and the re-ingest case
pins one stem across both runs, so it means "an edited manifest" on every
version rather than by accident.
MEASURED both ways: green at the pinned v0.3.2 (the distinction is invisible
there), and the WHOLE suite green at v0.5.0a2 — 668 passed. So there is no
technical blocker to the version move at all. What remains is not technical:
1. v0.4.0+ makes `llm-ingestion-guard>=0.2,<0.3` a hard runtime dependency
(v0.3.1/v0.3.2: `dependencies = []`), which moves two invariants this
repo publishes. Operator's call.
2. v0.5.0a2 is an alpha its own CHANGELOG scopes to a named pilot set this
repo is not in. llm-ingestion-okf's call; asked via coord.
The false report was corrected upstream the same hour it was sent.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GyAbxJoyypnLLUDcMvnKh8
The pin had sat at v0.3.1 with STATE calling the hold "deliberate" and
recording no reason. Measured: no coord message ever announced v0.4.0 or
v0.5.0a* to this repo, so the hold was drift wearing a decision's clothes.
v0.3.2 is a pure fix (frontmatter and index labels emit verbatim; only
source_query is whitespace-collapsed, per ingest-spec §5), keeps
`dependencies = []`, and is green here: 668 passed.
WHY NOT FURTHER, both measured rather than assumed:
1. v0.4.0 introduces a REGRESSION that breaks our §6 removal path.
Bisected v0.3.2 OK / v0.4.0 RED with a minimal repro: materialize a
bundle, then re-materialize it with a CHANGED manifest, and the library
no longer recognises its own stamp —
MaterializationError: generated filename 'ingest-costs.md' collides
with an existing file that does not carry the ingest stamp
The stamp carries the manifest's name+hash (`ingest_manifest: m2@…`), so
editing a manifest makes every file it previously wrote look curated.
Re-ingesting the SAME manifest is fine, which is why fixtures miss it.
It is `tests/test_ingest_loadbearing.py::test_reingest_with_active_
removal_preserves_promoted_and_curated` that catches it. Reported
upstream; not ours to fix.
2. Everything past v0.3.1 adds `llm-ingestion-guard>=0.2,<0.3` as a HARD
runtime dependency (v0.3.1/v0.3.2: `dependencies = []`). That flips two
documented invariants here — pyproject's "zero runtime deps" comment and
the STATE marker line the guard repo reads machine-readably ("not a
runtime dependency today"). An operator decision, not a version bump.
3. v0.5.0a2 is an alpha whose own CHANGELOG scopes it to a named pilot set
— portfolio-optimiser-claude, the marketplace catalog, claude-code-llm-wiki
— and says "do not pin this tag outside the pilot set", with the v0.2
surface free to change without a deprecation cycle. This repo is not a
pilot. Joining is llm-ingestion-okf's call, requested via coord.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GyAbxJoyypnLLUDcMvnKh8
Walked Door A from a fresh clone: materializing the file-family golden
manifest writes index.md plus one concept file per extraction, and pointing
the run at the result is refused —
run refused: IR projection not found in bundle: 'validator-input.json'
A clean fail-fast, but nothing adopter-facing said it was coming, while the
README actively invites it ("swap --bundle-dir for your own bundle"). The
run path needs the bundle's IR projection, which ingest does not and cannot
produce: ingest materializes source documents, the projection states the
candidate measure. Both docs now say so, with the shape reference named.
Also corrects a live-doc claim that was wrong in both halves: the MCP
timeout is `anyio.fail_after` nested inside both task groups, not
`asyncio.wait_for`, and `tests/test_ingest_golden_mcp.py` covers it
(verified — 2 passing timeout tests). And no bundled example ships a
`cost-baseline.json`, so the text no longer implies one does.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GyAbxJoyypnLLUDcMvnKh8
Walked from a fresh clone: `--embedder-config` was accepted in every mode
without `--semantic-retrieval` and then had no effect whatsoever. MEASURED,
not inferred — an injected embedder is consulted ZERO times with the flag
off and once with it on, because the only consumer is the HybridRanker that
flag builds; the default StructuralRetriever takes no embedder at all.
That is the silent-ignore this CLI's flag contract exists to prevent, and
the same ground on which `--semantic-retrieval` itself is already refused
when it cannot take effect.
REFUSED, not wired — the opposite call from `--scripted-replies` in
portfolio mode, and for a stated reason: there the seam already existed, so
refusing would have left a whole mode without an offline door. Here there
is nothing to wire to.
Mode-independent (both modes gate the embedder on the same flag) and placed
ABOVE the scripted door, mirroring the required-args hoist: a refused run
must not first print a banner claiming a scripted loop closed.
Five mutations against the WHOLE suite, all red, each isolating one seam:
detach the refusal (3 red) · scope it to single-project mode (portfolio arm
red) · move it below the banner (banner arm red, rc intact) · build the
ranker unconditionally (the zero-consultation measurement red) · ignore the
injected embedder (its control red).
663 -> 668 tests.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01GyAbxJoyypnLLUDcMvnKh8
An independent reviewer found it and the claim was verified by measurement
before being accepted, not taken on trust.
test_portfolio_scripted_pass_makes_no_real_client raised from the patched
_default_factory to prove the scripted portfolio pass never builds a production
client. It cannot: the factory is called inside run_project's coroutine, and
run_portfolio gathers with return_exceptions=True, so the AssertionError was
collected into a RunFailure and never escaped. Measured directly -- with BOTH
the client_factory wiring and the rc rule detached, the blade stayed GREEN. It
was going red on rc alone, which means it was testing defect B while claiming
to test defect A. The original seven-mutation sweep did not catch this because
each mutation was applied singly, and dropping the wiring alone still flips rc.
Replaced with a call sentinel: a list appended inside the factory and asserted
in the test body, which the wave handler cannot swallow. Re-measured -- red on
the wiring detach alone, and red on both detaches together.
The docstring now also states what the sweep could not: blades 1 and 8 are
environment-conditional. The local profile points at loopback, so on a machine
running a local model server the wiring detach would make real calls and could
complete the pass. Their red was real on the machine it was measured on and is
not portable; blade 2's is.
Separately, the budget-stop print is marked as defensive and currently
unreachable from main(), because main() never constructs a PortfolioMeter and
every write to budget_stop is gated on one -- the strict=True precedent
directly above says untested future-proofing must be labelled as such. The
README claim that a portfolio pass reports a cap stop is corrected to say the
cap has no CLI flag yet. Noted for whoever wires that door: BudgetRefused is a
RuntimeError and the existing except clause would not catch it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0118noV9rCfrdREH26XqZB5z
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
