Skip to content

docs(taxonomy): #498 coverage-status refresh — two-layer finding + reconciliation trajectory - #768

Merged
jsboige merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
docs/498-coverage-status-refresh
Jul 10, 2026
Merged

docs(taxonomy): #498 coverage-status refresh — two-layer finding + reconciliation trajectory#768
jsboige merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
docs/498-coverage-status-refresh

Conversation

@jsboige

@jsboige jsboige commented Jul 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Summary

Refresh the stale docs/taxonomy/498-coverage-status.md (dated 2026-07-05, master 70bd1605) with a code=truth scan at master 7796c127. 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:

Métrique Rows % of 1408 Serialized by
Attack layer (AIF_attackType+attackedNode) 93 6.6% #753 (back-fill §7) + #760 (scaleup)
Skos layer (skosDirectRef/ExceptionRef/MappingType) 70 5.0% pre-chantier baseline
Union (any AIF signal) 145 10.3%
Fully-modeled (both layers) 18 1.3% intersection

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

skos ✓ skos ✗
attack ✓ 18 (fully-modeled) 75 (attack-only)
attack ✗ 52 (skos-only) 1263 (unmapped)
  • 52 skos-only — vetted native tokens, no attack columns. Half-done. Highest-ROI back-fill, 0 fabrication risk (tokens already exist + verified). Family: Cheating 13, Insufficiency 10, ML 9, Faulty logics 8, Math 6, Influence 3, Obstruction 3.
  • 75 attack-only — 44 ML (skos already proposed + ratified in merged cluster docs PR-5..12, awaiting deep serialization) + 31 scaleup (need skos modeling, fail-loud docs(taxonomy): #141 crossLink enrichment sample run (real output curated from #626) #677).

Reprioritized trajectory (§5)

Reconcile the two layers before opening new clusters ex-nihilo:

  • P1 — back-fill attack columns for the 52 skos-only rows (bounded, vetted, 0 fabrication).
  • P2 — deep-serialize the already-proposed skos for the 44 ML attack-only rows.
  • P3 — new cluster docs on small clean residuals (Complication exagérée 6u, Opération inappropriée 5u) + Obstruction rebut nuclei (Évasion 1313, Procès en incohérence 1361).

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

🤖 Worker po-2024 — autonomous chantier-doc refresh (dispatch ai-01 hgicfj, primaire).

…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
jsboige merged commit e748735 into master Jul 10, 2026
3 checks passed
@jsboige
jsboige deleted the docs/498-coverage-status-refresh branch July 10, 2026 18:07
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>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant