docs(taxonomy): #498 coverage-status refresh — two-layer finding + reconciliation trajectory - #768
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…conciliation trajectory Refresh the stale coverage-status.md (2026-07-05, master 70bd160) with a code=truth scan at master 7796c12. Docs-only proposition (gated) — 0 prod CSV write. Central finding — the AIF mapping has TWO layers, never reconciled: - attack layer (AIF_attackType+attackedNode): 93 rows (6.6%) — #753+#760 - skos layer (AIF_skosDirectRef/ExceptionRef/MappingType): 70 rows (5.0%) — pre-chantier baseline - overlap = only 18 rows. Fully-modeled (both layers) = 18/1408 (1.3%). - union (any AIF signal) = 145/1408 (10.3%). The previous "70/1408 (5.0%)" was NOT wrong — it measured the skos layer, which predates the attack columns. "93" measures the attack layer. Two distinct counters, resolved here. Cross-tab (code=truth, 1408 rows): - 52 rows skos-only (vetted native tokens, NO attack columns) — highest-ROI back-fill, 0 fabrication risk (tokens already exist). Family spread: Cheating 13, Insufficiency 10, ML 9, Faulty logics 8, Math 6, Influence 3, Obstruction 3. - 75 rows attack-only (typed, NO skos): 44 ML (skos already proposed+ratified in merged cluster docs PR-5..12, awaiting deep serialization) + 31 scaleup (need skos modeling, fail-loud #677). Trajectory reprioritized (§5): reconcile the two layers (P1: 52 skos->attack; P2: 44 ML attack->skos) BEFORE opening new clusters ex-nihilo — the half-done rows carry vetted tokens and lift 2-layer completeness 1.3% -> ~7-8% for bounded effort. New clusters (P3) on the small clean residuals (Complication exageree 6u, Operation inappropriee 5u) + Obstruction rebut nuclei (Evasion, Proces en inconsistance). Distribution 61 undercut / 29 undermine / 3 rebut (RA/I/CA map exact). 3 rebut (1282/1313/1361) = first Fallacies rebut, all Obstruction. VERIFIED: all figures from CSV scan + git log. RAPPORTE: PR effects (git log). PENDING: #766 (Relativisme abusif rebut cluster, not merged — Relativisme abusif still shows 4 unmapped in code=truth). Co-Authored-By: Claude-Code <noreply@anthropic.com>
jsboige
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 10, 2026
…ows typed (gated proposal + dry-run apply) (#769) Réconciliation P1 (skos-only -> attack columns), GO ai-01 `msg-20260710T180845-5i1v03`, couvert par le pilote GO #498. Proposition gated : docs + apply-script dry-run, 0 write prod CSV dans ce diff. Correction load-bearing du cadrage #768 : il n'existe PAS de sous-ensemble "inherit mécanique" parmi les 52 skos-only. La classif initiale "19 inherit du sous-sous anchor" est un artefact — 0/19 ont une signature skos alignée sur leur anchor (les anchors du même sous-sous sont skos-VIDES : couche attack-only #753/#760, arguments différents). Hériter leur attackType serait une fabrication. L'attackType est un jugement neuf : 0-risque token (les tokens skos existent), pas 0-risque modélisation. Raffine le "0 fabrication risk" de #768. Méthode : attackType dérivé de la propre signature skos de chaque ligne, ancré sur les 18 lignes fully-modeled (ground truth token->attackType). attackedNode déterministe #707§4 (a) : undercut->RA-node, undermine->I-node, rebut->CA-node. Tiering des 52 : - 14 PRECEDENT (token exact d'un précédent fully-modeled + contrôle sémantique) -> tranche 1, distribution 11 undermine / 2 undercut / 1 rebut. - 2 PREC-TIE (777 Inconsistance, 633 Relation infondée — votes divergents). - 36 SUFFIX-ONLY (aucun précédent ; le prior de suffixe vers undermine est non fiable — contre-ex. pente glissante 705/677 penchent undercut) -> modélisation Walton au cas par cas, sous-lots aux prochains ticks. Livrables : - docs/taxonomy/498-reconciliation-p1.md — proposition (correction, méthode, tranche 1 avec justif par ligne, reste scopé, bornes du gate). - docs/taxonomy/498-reconciliation-p1-annotations.csv — 12 cols, 14 lignes, BOM+CRLF (factuel lu du CSV master, raisonnement authored). - tools/498-p1-apply.py — apply gated (--write dry-run par défaut), mirroir de 498-phase13-apply.py (#757). Re-vérifie 14/14 vs annotation CSV, splitters byte-exact, preuve byte-preservation. Dry-run : 0 mismatch, 93 -> 107 attack-typed, delta 207 bytes, CRLF+BOM préservés, 0 write prod. Sérialisation prod = étape suivante gated (relais ai-01), pas dans ce PR. Co-authored-by: Your <your.email@example.com> Co-authored-by: Claude-Code <noreply@anthropic.com>
jsboige
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 11, 2026
…(foundation of the derivations) (#770) Adds §2bis to the P1 reconciliation proposition (#769): a read-only audit of the 18 fully-modeled anchors on which every P1 attackType derivation rests. If an anchor is mis-typed, the error propagates into every derived tranche and, eventually, prod — so the anchor set is validated before more rows are derived. Audit (hand-Walton "what does the CQ defeat" + code=truth cross-check): - layer census re-confirmed vs #768: fully-modeled 18 / attack-only 75 / skos-only 52. - node-map #707§4a (undercut->RA / undermine->I / rebut->CA): 18/18 clean, 0 violation. - skos<->attackType coherence: 16 CLEAN, 2 SOFT (defendable), 0 outright error. Foundation VALIDATED — the 14 tranche-1 derivations all rest on CLEAN anchors; the only SOFT dependency is pk1281<-pk1313 (same family, same rebut nucleus). Two SOFT anchors flagged (choices, not errors): pk1313 Evasion (rebut as global dialogue-level conflict) and pk1361 Proces en incoherence (rebut vs undercut/ undermine judgment call — it is the anchor 777->rebut leans on, so 777 must be tranched by desc_fr + co-token, not mechanically). Three findings that HARDEN the method (beyond validation): 1. suffix _Conflict/_Inference does NOT determine attackType — in-set proof: pk804 PropertyNotExistant_Conflict -> undercut (vs _Conflict->undermine elsewhere). Empirically grounds the "suffix-prior unreliable" claim (§2/§5), previously argued only from 677/705. 2. slippery-slope leans undercut — in-set anchor pk858 VerbalSlipperySlope_ Inference -> undercut grounds the 677/705 counter-example (previously CQ- semantic only). 3. CircumstantialAdHominem_Inference is non-decisive (in both 1361 rebut and 1371 undermine) -> 777/633 tie-break must read co-token + desc_fr. Deliverables (read-only vs prod taxonomy — 0 CSV write in the diff): - docs/taxonomy/498-reconciliation-p1.md — §2bis audit + TL;DR point 5. - docs/taxonomy/498-audit-18-anchors.csv — 10 cols, 18 rows, BOM+CRLF (factual cols read from master e748735; verdict+note authored). - tools/498-audit-anchors.py — reproducible read-only audit (re-derives the 18 from prod, checks node-map, cross-verifies the audit CSV). RESULT: OK. Co-authored-by: Your <your.email@example.com> Co-authored-by: Claude-Code <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Refresh the stale
docs/taxonomy/498-coverage-status.md(dated 2026-07-05, master70bd1605) with a code=truth scan at master7796c127. Docs-only proposition (gated) — 0 prod CSV write. Flagged stale by both ai-01 and po-2024 (the §5 next-targets were wrong post-#753/#760).Central finding — the AIF mapping has two layers, never reconciled
The "coverage" number depends on which AIF layer you measure:
AIF_attackType+attackedNode)skosDirectRef/ExceptionRef/MappingType)The two layers overlap only at 18 rows. The previous "70/1408 (5.0%)" was not wrong — it measured the skos layer, which predates the attack columns. "93" measures the attack layer. Two distinct counters, resolved here.
Cross-tab (code=truth, 1408 rows) — the reconciliation gap
Reprioritized trajectory (§5)
Reconcile the two layers before opening new clusters ex-nihilo:
Completing the half-done rows lifts 2-layer completeness 1.3% → ~7-8% for bounded effort.
Distribution (code=truth)
61 undercut / 29 undermine / 3 rebut — RA/I/CA deterministic map (#707§4 (a)) exact. The 3 rebut (1282/1313/1361) = first Fallacies rebut, all Obstruction.
Discipline
498-coverage-status.mdchanged (198 ins / 128 del). No.mcp.json/tmp//__pycache__staged.🤖 Worker po-2024 — autonomous chantier-doc refresh (dispatch ai-01
hgicfj, primaire).