Commit graph

3 commits

Author SHA1 Message Date
9e44afeefb docs: name the mechanism behind the untouched-debate proof, and re-measure all three bases
The report's strongest evidence is that the debate's three context copies are
byte-identical before and after. It was established by comparing the per-prompt
proposer/checker token lists, NOT by the probe's carries flag -- which after the
change correctly reports no, because the listing's text is not in the debate's
prompts. A flag that flips for the right reason is not a proof of sameness; the
token counts are. Said once, where the claim is made.

And bygg's copy count was carried over from the middle-slice probe that the
section immediately below declares broken. All three bases are now re-measured
with the corrected ASCII probe; bygg confirms five copies and the same
exploration total. A cell sourced from an instrument you yourself retired is
what that paragraph exists to refuse.
2026-09-03 01:30:09 +02:00
b799cc527f feat(explore): read_bundle costs O(documents), never O(bytes of the base)
[skip-docs]

S2c / MAJOR-3, order 20260902T151931Z-250257273. The measurement landed first
in ce7f687; this commit is the one seam it authorised, plus the after-table.

read_bundle returned okf.bundle_context -- the WHOLE navigated base. Because
the exploration's participants share one conversation history, that single
function_result rode in FIVE later prompts at full price without anyone asking
for it again: 54-59 percent of every prompt-token in a CLI --explore run.

It now returns the catalogue form one rung down the ladder -- one entry per
concept document (name, type, title, chars) -- with read_file as the next rung.
Tunnel base: 12 595 -> 259 o200k tokens, exploration prompt-tokens -91 percent.

The listing is built from Bundle.context_files and never from files: that is
the property which drops the type: verdict layer at every level, and a listing
built from files would route prior verdicts in front of the navigator around
the gated ExpeL fold while every cost arm stayed green.

A premise was felled before anything was built on it: the tunnel base's root
index body is 4 763 chars alone, nearly the whole ceiling, for a field the
catalogue already excerpts and read_file still returns whole. So read_bundle
carries the listing and not the index.

The tool description and the navigator's instruction both claimed "read its
navigated context" and were updated in the same move -- a description that lies
about the body IS the model's instruction. Two pre-existing asserts would have
gone vacuously true against a list and were strengthened rather than left.

Ceiling lives in the test, not in explore.py. Deviation stated there and in the
docs: it bounds CHARACTERS, not tokens, because tiktoken is not a project
dependency and a gate that skips when an optional package is missing is a gate
that can be silently absent; the conversion was measured (2.89 chars/token) and
the order's own token criterion verified once by the instrument.

Load-bearing measured: seven mutations, all red against the WHOLE suite; green
control 1195 passed / 5 skipped (from 1189/5, strict superset); golden
demo-transcript.stdout byte-unchanged; and the debate's three bundle_context
copies are byte-identical before and after, which proves run.py and the
nav-goldens were not touched rather than asserting it.
2026-09-03 00:36:08 +02:00
ce7f687717 docs: read_bundle's context cost measured with a denominator, before any change
S2c / MAJOR-3, order 20260902T151931Z-250257273. The order's rule is MEASURE
FIRST, so the numbers land as their own commit before the seam is touched.

Instrument validated against a known positive before use: it reproduces
commons' own published bundle_context fasit exactly (3 861 / 10 406 / 12 595).
Prompts are measured as text + function_call + function_result -- .text alone
undercounts a prompt whose whole payload is a tool result.

Measured, per CLI --explore run: one read_bundle result rides in FIVE
exploration prompts (navigator 1, manager 3, hypothesiser 1), which is 54-59
percent of every prompt-token in the run. The debate's three copies come from
run.py's okf.bundle_context and are a separate decision; they are in the table
as denominator and as the after-control, never as the target.

One premise felled before building on it: the tunnel base's root index body is
4 763 chars alone, nearly the whole 1 500-token ceiling, so read_bundle carries
the concept listing and not the index body -- which the catalogue already
excerpts and read_file still returns whole.
2026-09-02 23:52:21 +02:00