title: "Extract — "What do we NOT see?"" source: "tasks/TFW-53__hl_contract_and_goal_defence/research/iter1/3_extract.md"
Extract — "What do we NOT see?"¶
Mindset: Analyst. You have the raw findings. Now build structure. Make combinations visible that nobody proposed. Test: "Does my configuration space reveal at least one combination that nobody proposed in the Briefing?" Parent: HL-TFW-53 Goal: An approved HL becomes a frozen strategic contract that research may only amend through a logged, evidenced, owner-ruled channel.
OODA loops run: 3 of 3. L1 — configuration space. L2 — escalation modelling per configuration. L3 — the granularity/scope separation and its consequences.
Configuration Space¶
Cross-product of Gather's eight dimensions. The full space is 4⁸; per the template's >30 rule, C1 is the design exactly as the frozen HL §3 describes it, and every further row differs from C1 in ≥1 dimension. No evaluation here — elimination happens in Challenge.
| Config | D1 Scope | D2 Granularity | D3 State | D4 Classify | D5 Batching | D6 Asymmetry | D7 Phase HL | D8 REJECT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 As-approved | A all six | A whole section | B header+§12 | A researcher | B per iteration | A symmetric | (unspecified) | A independent |
| C2 Narrow set | B outcome set §1§5§6§7 | A whole section | B header+§12 | A researcher | B per iteration | A symmetric | C derived-only | B redefine (a) |
| C3 Claim-level | A all six | B declarative claims | C +baseline ref | A researcher | B per iteration | A symmetric | C derived-only | B redefine (a) |
| C4 Claim-level + asymmetric | A all six | B declarative claims | C +baseline ref | C two-key | B per iteration | C restrictive-logged | C derived-only | B redefine (a) |
| C5 Item-level | A all six | C numbered items | C +baseline ref | A researcher | B per iteration | C restrictive-logged | C derived-only | B redefine (a) |
| C6 Goals-only | C §1+§3 | A whole section | B header+§12 | B coordinator | B per iteration | A symmetric | B abolished | A independent |
| C7 Acceptance-only | D §5+§6 | C numbered items | B header+§12 | A researcher | B per iteration | A symmetric | B abolished | A independent |
| C8 Structural lock | A all six | A whole section | D filesystem marker | A researcher | B per iteration | A symmetric | A inherit | A independent |
| C9 Deferred gate | A all six | B declarative claims | C +baseline ref | A researcher | C at pre-TS gate | C restrictive-logged | C derived-only | B redefine (a) |
| C10 Passive log | A all six | B declarative claims | C +baseline ref | A researcher | D no push; owner reads §12 | C restrictive-logged | C derived-only | B redefine (a) |
| C11 Rule-table | A all six | B declarative claims | C +baseline ref | D mechanical rule table | B per iteration | C restrictive-logged | C derived-only | B redefine (a) |
| C12 Impact-classed | A all six | B declarative claims | C +baseline ref | C two-key | B per iteration | D impact-classed | C derived-only | C amendment before re-entry |
| C13 No phase HL | A all six | B declarative claims | C +baseline ref | A researcher | B per iteration | C restrictive-logged | B abolished | B redefine (a) |
| C14 Phase contract | A all six | B declarative claims | C +baseline ref | A researcher | B per iteration | C restrictive-logged | D own approval gate | B redefine (a) |
Findings¶
E1 — The frozen/free axis is not the axis that controls cost. Granularity is.¶
G1 measured escalation load against D1 (which sections). Modelling the same 213 rows against D2 (what unit inside a section) separates two variables the HL treats as one.
Modelled escalation load per configuration. C1 is an exact count from G1; the rest are projections applied row-by-row to the same corpus and are marked as such.
| Config | Escalating rows / 213 | Iterations that escalate / 36 | Mean proposals per escalating iteration |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 As-approved | 162 — 76% (counted) | 35 — 97% (counted) | 4.6 |
| C2 Narrow set (§1§5§6§7 whole-section) | ~26 — 12% (projected) | ~19 — 53% | ~1.4 |
| C3 Claim-level (all six, declarative only) | ~66 — 31% (projected) | ~26 — 72% | ~2.5 |
| C4 Claim-level + restrictive-logged | ~56 — 26% (projected) | ~24 — 67% | ~2.3 |
| C5 Item-level | ~95 — 45% (projected) | ~31 — 86% | ~3.1 |
| C7 Acceptance-only (§5§6) | ~15 — 7% (projected) | ~15 — 42% | ~1.0 |
Projection method: each of the 213 rows was re-tested against the configuration's protected unit. For
C3/C4 a row escalates if it changes the phase set or a phase's declared outcome, a §3 to-be claim, a §5/§6
item, a §7 principle, or §1 — and applies freely if it only specifies a deliverable list inside an approved
phase. C4 additionally releases the ~15% restrictive rows from G2 into APPLIED — restrictive.
The gap between C1 (4.6) and C2 (1.4) is entirely a definitional choice, and it is not the choice the HL argued about. HL §3's frozen/free table debates sections; the cost driver is what counts as a change to a section. Two configurations with an identical frozen section list differ by a factor of 3.3 in owner interruption.
E2 — The combination nobody proposed: C3/C4 need no amendment to ship¶
This is the Extract test's answer, and it is not a compromise between the alternatives — it is orthogonal to them.
Every response to G1's number that was visible in the Briefing involves shrinking the frozen set, which means amending HL §3 — a frozen section — on the first research iteration of the task that invented the amendment protocol. That is not fatal (it would be an honest first exercise of the mechanism), but it is expensive: it reopens the owner's central decision and it weakens the demonstration.
C3 and C4 do not require it. HL §3's table freezes sections; it never defines what constitutes a change to
one. That definition is explicitly delegated downward — HL §4 Phase A deliverable 3: "conventions.md §3 —
HL Contract definition: what freezes, when, what append-only means for §12." "What freezes" is inside
approved Phase A scope. Defining the frozen unit as declarative claims rather than whole section text
therefore lands as a Phase A design decision, not as an amendment.
Consequences:
- HL §3's frozen list stays exactly as approved. Zero amendments from iteration 1 on the freeze question.
- DoF-2 ("freezing so broad that routine research output triggers escalations") is answered by construction
rather than by shrinking the promise.
- The owner's approval keeps its meaning: all six sections are still frozen. What changed is that "we will
add mkdocs-literate-nav to requirements.txt" stops counting as a contract change, which no reading of
§1 Vision ever claimed it was.
E3 — DoD as the tripwire: a free-granularity rule needs a bound, and one already exists¶
C3/C4's obvious hole: if deliverable lists inside a phase are free, a phase can absorb an entire new capability one deliverable at a time — TFW-48's Phase A behaviour, relocated. The bound must be mechanical, not judgemental.
Proposed rule (Phase A design decision, not an amendment): a change to a deliverable list is a refinement only if it requires no change to §5 DoD or §6 DoF. If the deliverable cannot be accepted under the existing acceptance criteria, it is an amendment.
This is testable against the corpus, and it holds:
| Corpus case | Deliverable change | DoD row in the same RES? | Rule's verdict | Correct? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
TFW-22 #1 — replace Phase C's research.md enrichment with a research/ directory architecture |
large | yes — #9 "Update DoD to include: research/ directory, YAML mode config…" | escalate | yes — this is a contract change |
| TFW-38 iter4 #1–#4 — four "Add Phase A scope: …" rows | moderate | no | apply freely | yes — enrichment serving an already-approved DoD |
| TFW-25 U3 — "Phase A step 1: include 'Honesty Over Convincingness' rewrite" | small | yes — U4/U5 change DoD counts | escalate | yes — the count is the acceptance criterion |
| TFW-47 iter2 #1–#5 — Phase B/C deliverables: replace "verify" with "document" | wording | no | apply freely | yes — the deliverable was already approved; research only learned it was already true |
| TFW-27 #2 — "Phase B scope: 4 features, ~120 LOC" | large | yes — #3 "Phase B DoD update" | escalate | yes |
Five for five. The rule reuses a section that is already frozen at item level, adds no new concept, and is checkable by reading two tables. It also gives the researcher a mechanical classification test, which matters for D4.
E4 — §12 needs a change-type column, and ADR practice supplies the vocabulary¶
The HL §3 example log has columns # · Date · § · Proposed change · Evidence · Alternatives · Verdict.
Three distinct operations are being funnelled through one row shape, and they have different consequences
for the baseline (G7):
| Type | What happens to the frozen text | What happens to the baseline | Corpus example |
|---|---|---|---|
EXTEND |
untouched; a clause is added elsewhere | unchanged — the original still holds in full | TFW-46 R7 "consider adding 'Testing ≠ Evidence'" to §7 |
SUPERSEDE |
a named claim is replaced | re-freeze at a new baseline | TFW-22 #1 replacing Phase C's architecture |
APPLIED — restrictive |
tightened, applied immediately, logged not gated (D6 Alt C) | unchanged; the contract can only have got narrower | TFW-27 #1 removing the artifact graph |
Without the column, an EXTEND and a SUPERSEDE arrive at the owner looking identical, and the owner
must reconstruct the difference from the prose — which is the CCB rubber-stamp mechanism from G8
(no impact assessment → default approve). One column, three values, zero new sections. F22-compatible.
E5 — Phase HL: three viable governance forms, and the working tree already votes¶
Evidence spread across the corpus:
| Observation | Reading |
|---|---|
| TFW-42, TFW-46 ran multi-phase with phase folders and no phase HL at all | The artifact is optional in practice; work completes without it |
| TFW-47's phase HLs are verbatim transclusions of master §4 | When constrained, the artifact carries zero information |
| TFW-48's phase HLs are full second contracts | When unconstrained, the artifact carries a whole unapproved contract |
No templates/PhaseHL.md exists; conventions.md §3 does not define the type |
The class is defined by whatever the last agent wrote |
conventions.md §15 grants resume.md (Coordinator) the right to write Phase HL |
The authority exists; the constraint does not |
The three survivable forms:
- D7 Alt B (abolish) — the phase's authority is master §4 plus the phase TS. Supported by TFW-42/46
completing without one and by TFW-47's being informationally empty. Cost: a Phase TS for a late phase then
has no intermediate artifact carrying "what changed since the master was written"; resume.md loses a
permitted output.
- D7 Alt C (derivation-only) — a Phase HL may restate master content and add execution context, but may
not contain §1, §5, §6 or §7 of its own. Directly blocks TFW-48's failure while keeping the artifact.
Cheapest: one sentence in conventions.md §3 plus one §14 anti-pattern.
- D7 Alt D (own approval gate) — a second contract with a second owner ruling. Honest, and it doubles the
approval events per task, which is the interruption budget TFW-53 exists to protect.
Note the coupling to D2: under C3/C4, a derivation-only Phase HL that restates the master's phase outcome and lists deliverables is exactly a free-granularity artifact. The two rules compose without a special case.
E6 — The reference-point cascade is one level shorter than HL §3 describes¶
HL §3 states the principle chain as HL §7 → TS §3 → RF §3 → judge.md row 2, self-referential because HL §7
is coordinator-authored. G3 adds a link the chain diagram omits:
master HL §7 (owner-approved)
↓ ← [TFW-48](../../../TFW-48__value_first_methodology_rebaseline/): three principles dropped here, no gate, no diff
phase HL §7 (coordinator-authored, unapproved, no template)
↓
phase TS §3 Principles Check
↓
phase RF §3
↓
judge.md row 2 — mapping integrity against the phase's own principle set
The self-referentiality is therefore worse than diagnosed: the reviewer's principle check in a multi-phase task can be validating against a principle list that was authored one level below the owner's approval and never compared to it. This is inside iteration 1's remit only as a fact; the consequence for the Phase C design (which reference set the goal check reads) belongs to iteration 2 and is carried as an open thread.
E7 — What "committed before research" actually has to mean¶
DoD-5 requires the approved HL committed before the first research iteration. G4 shows the header cannot name its own commit. Working through the operational sequence exposes a second requirement nobody has stated:
1. owner approves → coordinator writes header: Contract: 🔒 FROZEN, approved YYYY-MM-DD
2. coordinator commits → [agent/TFW-NN/freeze/coordinator] freeze approved hl
^^^^^ reserved scope word makes the baseline findable
3. research runs → RES classifies; frozen-targeting findings become §12 rows
4. owner rules → approved rows applied
5. coordinator re-commits → [agent/TFW-NN/freeze/coordinator] re-freeze at amendment A2
Step 5 is the part the HL does not specify and DoF-7 half-anticipates. If an approved amendment is applied
without a new freeze commit, the second baseline is the one that becomes unverifiable — TFW-48's failure
mode reproduced after the first amendment rather than before the first research iteration. git log --grep
on the reserved scope then returns the full freeze history of the contract, in order, with diffs between
consecutive baselines. This is what makes "the baseline is diffable" true across a task's whole life rather
than only at its start.
The reserved scope word is the only new convention required, and D55's [agent/task/scope/role] grammar
already has the slot.
Checkpoint¶
| Found | Remaining |
|---|---|
| Granularity (D2), not scope (D1), controls escalation cost — 4.6 vs 1.4 proposals per iteration with an identical frozen section list | Whether "declarative claim" is expressible without ambiguity by a non-adversarial agent — Challenge |
C3/C4 require no amendment: HL §4 Phase A deliverable 3 already delegates "what freezes" to conventions.md |
Whether the coordinator would actually read it that way, or treat it as a loophole — Challenge |
| DoD-as-tripwire bounds the free granularity; validated 5/5 against the corpus | Adversarial case: an agent that avoids escalation by not proposing the DoD change — Challenge |
§12 needs a change-type column (EXTEND / SUPERSEDE / APPLIED — restrictive); ADR practice supplies the semantics |
— |
| Phase HL: derivation-only (D7 Alt C) composes with C3/C4 without a special case; abolition also viable | Which one the owner prefers — carried to RES Open Questions |
| The principle chain has an extra unapproved link at phase level | Consequence for the Phase C reference set — iteration 2 open thread |
| Re-freeze after an approved amendment is unspecified and is where the baseline is lost the second time | — |
Sufficiency:
- [x] External source used? — ADR supersede vs amend/extend semantics imported as §12's change-type vocabulary
- [x] Briefing gap closed? — the "shrink the set or shrink the unit" question from the Briefing now has a modelled answer
- [x] Configuration Space built from Gather dimensions? — 14 configurations across all 8 dimensions
- [x] (deep) Hypothesis tested? — H1's consequence re-tested under 6 configurations; H3 resolved into the freeze-commit sequence
- [x] (deep) Counter-evidence sought? — E3 is written as the attack on E2 and answered mechanically; the residual adversarial case is handed to Challenge
Metacognitive check. E2 is new and was not reachable from the Briefing: the response to a refuted H1 does not have to be an amendment, because the HL delegated the definition that carries the cost. E1's factor-of-3.3 was not visible before the corpus was re-modelled per configuration. E6 and E7 are new consequences rather than new data. Unchecked source: no attempt was made to measure how many of the 213 rows the owner would have rejected had they been asked — that number is unknowable from artifacts and is the honest limit of the G1/E1 estimates.
Stage complete: YES → User decision: autonomous run — advancing to Challenge without a gate, per owner instruction.