David F GliddenandClaude Opus 5
7e19eb51d7
The Fool experiment was not reproducible. Trials 01-02 were run ad hoc: no
script, and of the run conditions only the model ID, MLX version, hardware and
enable_thinking survive. The prompt exists as paraphrase with quoted fragments;
temperature, top_p, max_tokens and seed were never recorded anywhere. Trial 03
could not have been run under trial 02's conditions.
The same failure destroyed the v1 Chamber's GPT-side protocol, discovered today:
it lived as configuration inside a hosted product, was updated in place, and is
gone. The Claude-side prompt from the same morning survives because it was a file
in a repository. A protocol that is not a file is not a protocol.
fool/run_trial.py makes every run a file — prompt hashed into the record, every
sampling parameter recorded including defaults, reasoning trace separated but
never suppressed, and an empty answer marked `degraded` rather than passing as a
finding of silence (trial 02's error, now structurally impossible). Trial 03's
prompt is reconstructed from the surviving fragments and says so in its own
PROVENANCE file: trial 03 is NOT a strict one-variable step from trial 02, and
the chain is clean only from here forward.
ADDENDUM-1 files the measurement the ESCALATE doctrine package states it lacks
("no such measurement exists"). The 2025 Chamber archive, read at steward
direction, shows mutual divergence in 3 of 3 pairs where the instruction was
comparable. Its value is that its parties were of matched capability, so their
divergence cannot be a capability-gap artifact — the arm these trials
structurally cannot produce. Scope held tight: this measures formation
independence between two commercial models. It does NOT answer Q3, the
jurist-executor pair, and the executor's lean there remains none.
Carried as disconfirming evidence: all five interpretive corrections today came
from the steward, not from the executor's own checking, and every one was a
census failure rather than a reading failure. A differently-formed reader of a
document is not positioned to catch those. Formation diversity addresses reading,
not scope.
Nothing applied. The parent package is unmodified; no ratified document edited.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WuMjg3ipEVa3n8CoSzoyvc
50 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
50 lines
2.2 KiB
Markdown
# Provenance — `trial-03-assumptions.txt`
|
|
|
|
**Status: RECONSTRUCTED, not recovered. Read this before comparing trial 03 to trial 02.**
|
|
|
|
## What happened
|
|
|
|
Trials 01 and 02 were run without a harness. The prompt was composed inline and never
|
|
written to a file. What survives is the record kept in the trial write-ups:
|
|
|
|
From `fool-trial-01-2026-08-01.md`:
|
|
|
|
> **Prompt:** form, not target — *"identify what this document ASSUMES but does not
|
|
> ESTABLISH"*, with an explicit anti-contrarian clause (*"if you find nothing worth
|
|
> saying, say nothing — inventing objections is worse than silence"*). No steer toward
|
|
> any part of the document.
|
|
|
|
From `fool-trial-02-2026-08-02.md`:
|
|
|
|
> **Prompt change from trial 01:** added an **anti-echo constraint** — *"The document
|
|
> contains a section in which the author states his own limitations. Do NOT list those
|
|
> back. An assumption the author has already named is not a finding."*
|
|
|
|
Those quoted fragments are the whole surviving record. The surrounding wording — the
|
|
task framing, the ordering, whatever else was said — is gone.
|
|
|
|
## What this file is
|
|
|
|
The two quoted constraints, verbatim, set in a task framing reconstructed from the
|
|
description "form, not target". It is a faithful reconstruction of the *recorded*
|
|
content and an invented reconstruction of the *unrecorded* content.
|
|
|
|
## The consequence, stated so it is not forgotten
|
|
|
|
**Trial 03 is NOT a strict one-variable step from trial 02.** Two things differ: the
|
|
document under test, and an unknown amount of prompt wording. Any comparison between
|
|
trial 02 and trial 03 must carry that caveat.
|
|
|
|
The chain is clean from trial 03 forward: this file is now hashed into every run record
|
|
by `run_trial.py`, and any change to it produces a different hash and must be declared.
|
|
|
|
## Why the loss is recorded rather than smoothed
|
|
|
|
The same failure destroyed the v1 Chamber's GPT-side protocol — configuration held
|
|
inside a hosted product, updated in place, unrecoverable. The Claude-side prompt from
|
|
the same day survives, because it was a file. The lesson is not about either model. It
|
|
is that a protocol which is not a file is not a protocol.
|
|
|
|
Recorded 2026-08-02, at the point the loss was discovered rather than at the point it
|
|
became inconvenient.
|