diff --git a/.beads/issues.jsonl b/.beads/issues.jsonl index 08159e7..199f92c 100644 --- a/.beads/issues.jsonl +++ b/.beads/issues.jsonl @@ -1,11 +1,12 @@ {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-ju3","title":"Programme codes share a namespace with the generic c/o/s type prefixes: 14% of harbor-house is silently optional and cr1's declared targets are all discarded","description":"Urb's type system is prefix-based (a type starting with 'c' is circulation, 'o'/'s' is outside) and programme room codes live in the SAME namespace, so any code whose name happens to start with c, o or s is silently reinterpreted as a generic type. Three separate consequences, none announced anywhere in the output:\\n\\n1. graph.check_space_counts line ~530 does 'if code[0].lower() in (\"c\",\"o\",\"s\"): continue' -- the code is SKIPPED ENTIRELY. Never required, never counted, no missing fail, no too-many fail.\\n2. Fitness.get_space_params returns the generic *_circulation / *_outside params BEFORE consulting self.spaces, so declared size/width/proportion are overridden.\\n3. dom.is_circulation / is_outside become true, changing the leaf's value rate, exempting it from crinkliness, and making it supply daylight to neighbours.\\n\\nharbor-house is affected; maple-court, health-centre and programme-house are namespace-clean.\\n\\n cr1 'Common Room with Fireplace' (c): size 80.0 -\u003e 0.0/14.0, width 6.0 -\u003e 2.4, proportion 2.0 -\u003e 1.5, ALL THREE overridden; is_circulation=True so value_rate 50 not 300.\\n of 'Staff Office' x2 (o): width/proportion overridden; is_outside=True; value_rate 100.\\n st1/st2 'Storage' (s): width/proportion overridden; is_outside AND is_circulation True; value_rate 100.\\n\\n5 of 37 room instances (14%) are silently optional. MEASURED CONSEQUENCE: in a 20k-eval run the two cr1 leaves converged to 32.9 and 17.1 m2 against a declared 80 m2, and produced no too-many-spaces fail despite count:1; of/st1/st2 are absent from the result entirely with zero fails, because nothing ever asked for them. Compounds with homemaker-py-2v1: cr1 is the single largest room in the programme and is classified circulation, so the x6 value gap pays the search to shrink it.","design":"Separate the namespaces. Cleanest is an explicit per-space 'class:' key in patterns.config (inside/circulation/outside) defaulting to inside, with the prefix rule used ONLY for untyped generic leaves the search creates -- programme codes then never collide regardless of spelling. A cheaper stopgap is a load-time validation error in programme.load_programme_dir that refuses a programme code starting with c/o/s, which at least converts a silent misread into a loud one. Renaming harbor's four codes would fix that one programme but leaves the trap armed for the next author.","acceptance_criteria":"A programme declaring a code starting with c/o/s either honours its declared params and count, or fails loudly at load. harbor-house re-baselined against its real 37-instance programme, and every DESIGN.md harbor fail count re-stated or annotated as measured against the 32-instance effective programme.","status":"closed","priority":0,"issue_type":"bug","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-26T08:26:37Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-26T09:05:11Z","started_at":"2026-08-26T08:55:30Z","closed_at":"2026-08-26T09:05:11Z","close_reason":"Shipped as loud validation + harbor rename rather than the class: key (DESIGN.md §39.3). The class: key was deliberately not built: auditing the prefix rule showed l/k/b/t carry adjacency semantics too, so re-plumbing the type system would invalidate the whole corpus for a problem whose damage is the silence, not the convention. programme.validate_codes raises on c/o/s codes from both parse paths; harbor cr1/of/st1/st2 renamed to fr1/ao/gs1/gs2 (neutral unused prefixes, prefix-sharing preserved); migrate_ju3_rename.py migrates pre-rename .dom files. Re-baselined at seed 1/20k: 57 fails on the 32-instance effective programme -\u003e 55 on the real 37-instance one, with all five previously-lost room instances now placed inside their declared sigma bands and zero fails naming them.","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-2v1","title":"Connectivity is under-priced ~3x against the circulation-\u003ehabitable value gap: the objective is net-positive on severing the spine","description":"Sharper root cause than homemaker-py-ssz, isolated by the 38.6 A/B (which showed none of the three crinkliness modes removes the deletion incentive). Deleting a circulation leaf merges it into its sibling, converting corridor into habitable area. value_circulation=50 vs value_inside=300, so that is a flat 6x value gain. The only counter-pressure is the 'level N not connected' fail, worth 0.5x under value *= 0.5**len(failures). Break-even needs 0.5^k \u003c 50/300, i.e. k \u003e 2.58 -- severing must cost AT LEAST 3 fails to be net-negative, and it costs 1. Net incentive to sever = 6 * 0.5 = 3.0x in favour; measured 4.06x on a well-lit (q_crink=0.736) circulation leaf, so this is NOT the zero-exposure effect and is not fixable inside quality_uncrinkliness. This is the cleanest explanation of why 'level 0 not connected' and 'level 1 not connected' are still present in evolved-3M-nols-3, the best layout found after 1.7M evals: the search is being paid 3-4x to create them.","design":"Options: (a) emit connectivity fails with a multiplicity \u003e= 3 (cheapest, but stacks with the 1i8 cascade-weighting problem and is a magic number); (b) make the connectivity penalty multiplicative and explicit rather than riding the generic 0.5^n (a dedicated building_factor term, sized from the value-rate gap so it tracks value_circulation/value_inside instead of being hard-coded); (c) revalue circulation as infrastructure -- its worth is that it makes other rooms reachable, which the current per-leaf value rate cannot express; the principled version credits circulation with the access it provides rather than its own floor area. (c) is the architecturally correct one and the biggest change. Recommend measuring (a) first purely to confirm the mechanism (does the 3x threshold flip the deletion test?), then designing (b) or (c) properly.","acceptance_criteria":"Deletion test (experiments/diag_exposure_frontage.py value + the ssz A/B harness) shows lit and buried C/O deletions are no longer rewarded; then harbor-house reaches the 15-fail floor in materially fewer than 1.7M evals AND without 'level 0/1 not connected' in the result.","status":"closed","priority":0,"issue_type":"bug","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-26T07:37:39Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-26T14:13:53Z","started_at":"2026-08-26T14:09:32Z","closed_at":"2026-08-26T14:13:53Z","close_reason":"MEASURED NULL — premise retracted (DESIGN.md §39.8). The arithmetic was right and the premise was wrong. Shipped connectivity_weight (EXPERIMENTAL, default 1.0 = flat rule, byte-identical) with connectivity_weight_for() deriving w=3 from value_inside/value_circulation rather than hard-coding it. At auto the §38.2 deletion test does not move AT ALL: 5/25 rewarded either way, median x0.26 vs x0.27 — because the connectivity fail count is UNCHANGED in every rewarded deletion (measured: 115-\u003e107 fails but 5-\u003e5 connectivity; 107-\u003e99 but 3-\u003e3; etc). Weighting a fail that never fires changes nothing. And when a deletion DOES break connectivity it is already punished: harbor 2 such deletions of 32, both punished (x0.00, x0.01); maple 5 of 32, all punished (x0.58..x0.07). Severing already costs 1-2 connectivity fails plus the cascade after them, which outweighs the x6 value gain. The x4.06 'well-lit circulation leaf' that motivated the bead was a deletion that did not change connectivity at all — it was rewarded for removing its own quality fails (§38.1's zero-value finding) and I misread it as a pricing mechanism. Flag kept default-off with the write-up per house style for a null lever.","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":2,"comment_count":0} -{"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-118","title":"Native-vs-Perl fitness parity is unverified: no oracle .score has ever been committed, and the tests were self-comparing","description":"DESIGN.md 39.20. tests/test_dom_corpus.py has two tests --\ntest_native_fitness_score_parity and test_native_fitness_fail_set_parity --\nthat read a cached .score/.fails beside each corpus .dom and treat it as the\nPerl oracle's answer. They are the only check that the native Python fitness\nagrees with the Urb oracle it was ported from.\n\nThey have never run against a real oracle score in this repository:\n\n* .gitignore lines 10-11 exclude *.dom.score and *.dom.fails;\n* git log --diff-filter=A over those patterns finds ZERO files ever added.\n\nSo on a clean checkout all 64 parametrised cases skip. The only cases that\never executed were ones where somebody had locally run homemaker-fitness (the\nNATIVE scorer) and left its output in the corpus directory -- at which point\nthe test compared the native scorer with itself and passed by construction.\n\nThree such cases were live and green in this session, on the\ncoldstart-500000-s*.dom artefacts I generated in examples/programme-house.\nThey only surfaced because the 39.19 objective change made the native scorer\ndisagree with its own stale output.\n\nShipped as a stopgap: the parametrisation is now restricted to the Perl\ncorpus's MD5-named files, so a session artefact can never become a fixture\nagain, and the skip message states plainly that parity is unverified rather\nthan reading like a missing optional cache. A guard test asserts the\nrestriction holds. All 64 cases now skip honestly.\n\nWhat is actually needed:\n\n* regenerate .score/.fails for the 32 MD5-named programme-house fixtures from\n the PERL oracle (needs the ../urb checkout and URB_NO_OCCLUSION=1), and\n COMMIT them -- which means narrowing the .gitignore rules so fixture caches\n can be tracked while working files stay ignored;\n* then confirm whether native fitness still matches. It may well not: this\n session alone shipped 39.14 (crinkliness one-sided), 39.18 (geometric-mean\n aggregation) and 39.19 (value_supported), none of which the Perl oracle has.\n If parity is intentionally abandoned, the tests should be deleted and\n DESIGN.md should say so -- what must not persist is a test that looks like\n it guarantees parity and guarantees nothing.\n\nP1 because it is a measurement-integrity defect in the validation layer\nitself, and because the answer determines whether oracle.py and the Perl shim\nare still meaningful as a cross-check (CLAUDE.md still describes them that\nway).\n","status":"open","priority":1,"issue_type":"bug","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-09-05T19:18:07Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-09-05T19:18:07Z","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} +{"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-bk9","title":"Re-baseline the corpus under the post-39.19 objective (the 500k table is superseded)","description":"DESIGN.md 39.12's cold-start baseline -- four programmes x 3 seeds x 500,000\nevaluations, ~430 h of compute -- was measured under an objective that no\nlonger exists. 39.19 changed what \"good\" means:\n\n * 39.14 crinkliness_shape=\"daylight\" (default OFF, so not yet in the mix)\n * 39.18 quality_aggregate=\"geometric_mean\" (now DEFAULT ON)\n * 39.19 value_supported 300 -\u003e 100 (now the default and in all four\n corpus patterns.config files)\n\nThe committed coldstart-500000-s*.dom layouts remain valid artefacts and their\nFAIL COUNTS are unchanged by any of this (value rates never enter fail\nemission, and evaluate_leaf emits each fail from its factor before anything is\ncombined). What is stale is the comparison: any new run optimises a different\nscalar, so beating 39.12's numbers no longer means what it meant.\n\nNeeded:\n\n python experiments/run_coldstart_baseline.py --budget 500000 --seeds 3\n\non the local machine -- the container is reclaimed on conversation inactivity,\nwhich lost the first attempt at this (0 of 12 completed) before checkpointing\nwas added. The runner commits and pushes after every finished run, one worker\nper run to avoid b8g's parallel non-determinism, seed-major so a lost box\nleaves all four programmes at fewer seeds rather than one programme complete.\n\nRecord, as 39.12 did: per-programme mean, sd, and the minimum detectable\ndifference at n=3, so the next A/B knows what it can resolve. 39.12's MDDs\nunder the OLD objective were harbor 13.7, maple 26.6, health-centre 6.6,\nprogramme-house 0.0 -- expect them to move.\n\nAlso worth capturing this time, since 39.17 showed it predicts the fail rate\nalmost exactly: per-storey supply/demand of daylit wall. And re-check 39.17's\nobservation that the search puts its open space on the storey that already has\nsurplus -- 39.19 repriced exactly that behaviour (terrace 2.69 -\u003e 0.87 return\non cost), so it is the first place to look for an effect.\n\nUntil this lands, no fail count from a new run is comparable with anything in\n39.12, and the acceptance discipline of 39.12 (beat the mean by more than the\nprogramme's MDD, at n \u003e= 3) applies to the re-baseline itself.\n","status":"open","priority":1,"issue_type":"task","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-09-06T07:49:21Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-09-06T07:49:21Z","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} +{"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-118","title":"Native-vs-Perl fitness parity is unverified: no oracle .score has ever been committed, and the tests were self-comparing","description":"DESIGN.md 39.20. tests/test_dom_corpus.py has two tests --\ntest_native_fitness_score_parity and test_native_fitness_fail_set_parity --\nthat read a cached .score/.fails beside each corpus .dom and treat it as the\nPerl oracle's answer. They are the only check that the native Python fitness\nagrees with the Urb oracle it was ported from.\n\nThey have never run against a real oracle score in this repository:\n\n* .gitignore lines 10-11 exclude *.dom.score and *.dom.fails;\n* git log --diff-filter=A over those patterns finds ZERO files ever added.\n\nSo on a clean checkout all 64 parametrised cases skip. The only cases that\never executed were ones where somebody had locally run homemaker-fitness (the\nNATIVE scorer) and left its output in the corpus directory -- at which point\nthe test compared the native scorer with itself and passed by construction.\n\nThree such cases were live and green in this session, on the\ncoldstart-500000-s*.dom artefacts I generated in examples/programme-house.\nThey only surfaced because the 39.19 objective change made the native scorer\ndisagree with its own stale output.\n\nShipped as a stopgap: the parametrisation is now restricted to the Perl\ncorpus's MD5-named files, so a session artefact can never become a fixture\nagain, and the skip message states plainly that parity is unverified rather\nthan reading like a missing optional cache. A guard test asserts the\nrestriction holds. All 64 cases now skip honestly.\n\nWhat is actually needed:\n\n* regenerate .score/.fails for the 32 MD5-named programme-house fixtures from\n the PERL oracle (needs the ../urb checkout and URB_NO_OCCLUSION=1), and\n COMMIT them -- which means narrowing the .gitignore rules so fixture caches\n can be tracked while working files stay ignored;\n* then confirm whether native fitness still matches. It may well not: this\n session alone shipped 39.14 (crinkliness one-sided), 39.18 (geometric-mean\n aggregation) and 39.19 (value_supported), none of which the Perl oracle has.\n If parity is intentionally abandoned, the tests should be deleted and\n DESIGN.md should say so -- what must not persist is a test that looks like\n it guarantees parity and guarantees nothing.\n\nP1 because it is a measurement-integrity defect in the validation layer\nitself, and because the answer determines whether oracle.py and the Perl shim\nare still meaningful as a cross-check (CLAUDE.md still describes them that\nway).\n","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"bug","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-09-05T19:18:07Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-09-06T07:56:24Z","started_at":"2026-09-06T07:43:57Z","closed_at":"2026-09-06T07:56:24Z","close_reason":"Closed","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-3z0","title":"Preserve circulation connectivity DURING the resize, instead of repairing after it","description":"Named by homemaker-py-yql / DESIGN.md §39.9. The constructive seeder picks circulation as a CONNECTED dominating set and succeeds every time; _size_divisions_from_targets then moves every wall to hit the programme's area targets and destroys it. Measured: 41 of 49 circulation-to-circulation edges lost on health-centre, surviving shared walls squeezed to 0.54-1.11 m against door_width=1.2, taking fully-connected constructed seeds to 1/20, 1/20 and 0/20 across the corpus (100% with the resize disabled).\\n\\nRepairing AFTER the fact was measured and is a net loss (§39.9): operators.repair_circulation_settled restores 100% connectivity but raises missing-room fails by 5.0-8.5 per seed, because every leaf retyped to C displaces a required room at a 3-5 fail cascade. Kept default off.\\n\\nThe fix belongs upstream: constrain the resize so a shared boundary between two circulation leaves cannot fall below door_width. That is an added constraint on an existing solve rather than a new repair pass, and it keeps the programme intact — nothing is displaced, the wall simply is not allowed to close up.\\n\\nWorth checking while there: solver.py already has min_width_generic (default 1.2) keeping generic leaves from collapsing to slivers, which is the same idea applied to leaf WIDTH rather than to a shared BOUNDARY between two specific leaves. The new constraint may belong in the same place.","acceptance_criteria":"Constructed seeds stay \u003e=90% level-connected WITH the resize enabled, without raising missing-room fails; corpus re-baselined.","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"feature","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-26T14:37:48Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-26T15:10:30Z","started_at":"2026-08-26T15:02:29Z","closed_at":"2026-08-26T15:10:30Z","close_reason":"MEASURED NULL (DESIGN.md §39.10), and it reframes §39.9. Built operators._size_divisions_preserving_circulation: snapshot every cut, resize, then revert the cuts on the tree path between each circulation pair the resize broke — programme fully intact, only geometry given back. It works on connectivity (harbor 50-\u003e92%, maple 67-\u003e97%, health-centre 8-\u003e17%) but costs area accuracy: constructed-seed fails harbor 96.6-\u003e141.5, maple 141.8-\u003e175.8, size fails roughly double. Also recorded: both halves of the re-cut do damage in different proportions per programme (freezing rotation leaves harbor 71%, health-centre 8%, maple 92%), so a fix must be able to give back either; and a greedy single-cut revert stalls on the plateau where no ONE revert helps though two would, which is why targeting the broken pairs was needed.\n\nThe defence that raw constructed seeds understate the case — the resize is only a warm start, the inner loop should recover — was TESTED AND FAILS. Full search, harbor-house, 12000 evals, seed 1: OFF 43 fails (9 hard, 3 connectivity); ON 65 fails (26 hard, 4 connectivity). Worse on every axis including connectivity itself.\n\nREFRAMING: §39.9's fact stands (the resize destroys 41 of 49 circulation edges) but is NOT ACTIONABLE, because construction-time connectivity does not determine final connectivity. The search discards and rebuilds the seeder's circulation either way; constraining the seed only spends area quality the search cannot recover. Connectivity was never a construction problem, and §39.8 showed it is not an incentive problem either. Both flags stay default off; do not revisit without a new formulation (the standing bubble.py has).","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-yql","title":"Why do level-not-connected fails persist in the best layout, if severing is already punished?","description":"Re-opened by homemaker-py-2v1 closing NULL (DESIGN.md §39.8). §38.2 claimed the search was PAID to sever the circulation spine; measurement refuted that — every deletion that actually breaks connectivity is already punished (x0.00 to x0.58 across harbor-house and maple-court, 0 of 7 rewarded). So the incentive is correct, yet 'level 0 not connected' and 'level 1 not connected' still survive in evolved-3M-nols-3, the best layout after 1.7M evals.\\n\\nThe evidence now points at REACHABILITY rather than incentive: connected topologies may be hard to construct and hard to hold onto under mutation, not insufficiently rewarded. Worth checking:\\n - what fraction of constructed seeds start connected at all (§39.7 measured 4/3/5 inaccessible-usable-space fails per 3 seeds, so: not many)\\n - whether a connected layout, once found, survives mutation or is quickly lost\\n - whether the constructive seeder's circulation dominating set actually guarantees connectivity, or only approximates it\\n - whether the §39.7 usage change (39% of adjacency edges now trimmed) makes connectivity materially harder to achieve, which would be a cost of that fix worth quantifying\\n\\nNOTE this is now measurable in a way it was not before §39.7: the fails actually fire on constructed seeds instead of being hidden by routes through store cupboards.","acceptance_criteria":"A measurement distinguishing 'rarely constructed' from 'constructed then lost' for level connectivity, and a named lever for whichever it is.","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"task","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-26T14:13:54Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-26T14:37:30Z","started_at":"2026-08-26T14:31:19Z","closed_at":"2026-08-26T14:37:30Z","close_reason":"ANSWERED (DESIGN.md §39.9): constructed, then lost — at construction time, in the resize. _assign_adjacency_aware picks circulation as a CONNECTED dominating set and succeeds every time; _size_divisions_from_targets then moves every wall and destroys it. Measured, 20 seeds/programme: fully-connected seeds harbor 1/20, health-centre 1/20, maple 0/20. Control with proportion_aware=False (no resize): 100% connected on all three. Mechanism confirmed on health-centre: 41 of 49 circulation-to-circulation edges destroyed by the resize, surviving shared walls squeezed to 0.54-1.11 m against door_width=1.2. Same failure mode §37.7 recorded for CP-SAT assignment, never looked for in connectivity, worth 35-95 points.\n\n§39.7 COST CHECK: zero. Identical rates under prefix-inferred vs declared usages — has_circulation never trims C-C edges, so the usage change did not make connectivity harder.\n\nREPAIR MEASURED NEGATIVE: operators.repair_circulation_settled (§37.7's alternating-minimisation fix, bridging by retyping to C after geometry settles) restores 100% connectivity on all three programmes but is a net loss — connectivity fails -0.8..-1.7 while missing-room fails +5.0..+8.5, because each retyped leaf displaces a required room at a 3-5 fail cascade. Kept default off with the write-up.\n\nNEXT LEVER NAMED: preserve the connection during the resize (constrain _size_divisions_from_targets so a shared C-C boundary cannot fall below door_width) rather than rebuild it afterwards at the programme's expense.","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-sel","title":"Usage prefixes (b/t/l/k) are a second implicit namespace: 4 corpus rooms get another room's connectivity rules from their spelling","description":"§39.4 separated programme codes from the GENERIC structural types (C/O/S). It did not touch the other namespace sharing the first character: the USAGE prefixes b=bedroom, t=toilet, l=living, k=kitchen. These classify programme codes by first letter and are still prefix-based BY DESIGN (it is how Urb encodes room usage, and unlike the generic rule they never discard a requirement) -- but they are not inert.\\n\\ngraph.has_circulation deletes graph edges from them: a 'bedroom' loses its edges to living/kitchen/bedroom/toilet, a 'toilet' loses its edges to outside/living/kitchen/toilet, and b/t keep their LEAST popular circulation neighbour while l/k keep their MOST popular. fitness.access and the public-access check read them too. So a code that picks one up by accident is silently given another room's connectivity rules -- and connectivity is exactly where §38 located the residual.\\n\\nFour corpus rooms are misclassified by spelling alone:\\n la1 'Laundry Room' -\u003e living (harbor-house, harbor-house-l0, maple-court)\\n li1 'Library Corner' -\u003e living (harbor-house, maple-court)\\n br1 'Staff Room' -\u003e bedroom (health-centre)\\n tr1 'Treatment Room' -\u003e toilet (health-centre)\\n\\nMeasured on a constructed health-centre seed: tr1 (as a toilet) has its edge to the adjacent outside space O stripped from the circulation graph; br1 (as a bedroom) has its edge to t10 'Staff WC' stripped. Both feed has_circulation and therefore the 'N inaccessible usable space' / 'level N not connected' fails.\\n\\nReport it with: python experiments/audit_programme_config.py (usage-prefix section).","design":"FINAL SHAPE. usage is a plain ATTRIBUTE of the space definition, mandatory on every declared code, no prefix fallback and NO mapping table.\n\n spaces:\n ws1:\n name: Workshop Space # free text, building-specific\n usage: living # controlled, drives engine behaviour\n\nThe earlier 'usage_classes:' indirection table (binding author-coined names like craft-\u003eliving) is WITHDRAWN. It was wrong three ways: (a) an indirect name-\u003ebehaviour mapping living apart from the thing it describes is exactly the shape of the first-character prefix rule that §39 exists to remove, not relocate; (b) it is inconsistent with the schema — every other space property is a plain attribute (name/size/width/proportion/adjacency/level/requires_below/count/share/interchange/co_locate) and no key in patterns.config is an indirection table; (c) the need it served is already met, because 'programmes are building specific' is about what a room is CALLED and name: is already free text, whereas usage: records ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, which are not building-specific — a craft room and a lounge have the same ones, which is the entire reason the key exists.\n\nRULE THAT FALLS OUT: a usage value exists if and only if the engine treats it differently somewhere. Config selects among behaviours; it cannot invent them. A genuinely new access class means writing code, and at that point the value joins the controlled set for everyone. utility passes this test — not on edge-stripping (identical to bedroom today) but because it is intended to drive derive_interchange_classes; distinct behaviour in a second subsystem is a real difference, an alias is not.\n\nVocabulary: living, kitchen, bedroom, toilet, utility, none. Missing usage on a declared code = load error naming the code. Unknown value = load error.\n\nMutation-safety (the original objection): usage is CODE-level, so usage_of(leaf.type) is looked up fresh on every read exactly as size/width/adjacency already are. Never stamp it on a leaf — 51 sites assign leaf.type, and share/share_type plus the r5a resurrection bug are the precedent for why leaf-level attributes go stale.\n\nAssignments for all 52 corpus codes: experiments/usage_map_proposal.yaml (living 12, bedroom 17, utility 11, toilet 7, kitchen 2, none 3; zero unresolved).","acceptance_criteria":"A programme can declare a room's usage explicitly; the prefix rule applies only where nothing is declared; audit_programme_config reports no unintended usage classification across the corpus; re-baselined with an A/B.","notes":"ALL 52 CORPUS CODES NOW ASSIGNED (experiments/usage_map_proposal.yaml): living 12, bedroom 17, utility 11, toilet 7, kitchen 2, none 3. Zero unresolved.\n\nRulings received: li1 Library Corner + br1 Staff Room -\u003e living (same access requirements); tr1 Treatment Room -\u003e bedroom; la1 Laundry -\u003e utility; zt1 Sterilisation -\u003e utility; ph1 Pharmacy -\u003e bedroom (private room, not public, like an office); n 'Neighborhood' -\u003e bedroom (a communal sleeping area, much like a dormitory); gh1 Greenhouse -\u003e living (grows plants but a living area like a conservatory); ws1 Workshop -\u003e living CONDITIONALLY (building-specific: communal craft room vs maintenance area; both corpus programmes carrying it are communal living facilities).\n\nDESIGN DECISION 1 — utility is a DISTINCT value, not an alias for bedroom. Same edge-stripping today (identical access requirements) but separately declared, because (a) they are very different uses and the config should read truthfully, and (b) it gives programme.derive_interchange_classes (§13/§26, homemaker-py-9o5) a natural axis: bedroom-class and utility-class leaves could be interchangeable DURING search and collapse to their real use at scoring time — exactly the superposition relaxation that machinery already implements. Worth building the usage key with that hook in mind.\n\nDESIGN DECISION 2 — vocabulary controlled but NOT closed. The earlier 'closed enum, unknown value errors' recommendation is withdrawn ('programmes are building specific, so it would be nice to have a controlled vocabulary, but not entirely necessary'). Proposed: the six known names drive engine behaviour; a programme may coin its own (usage: craft) provided it binds it in the same file via usage_classes: {craft: living}. An unbound name is a load error, so naming stays free without ever letting an unrecognised usage fall through to a silent default.\n\nVERIFIED — Brand adjacency point is NOT an engine bug. fitness._evaluate_full runs check_adjacency against graph_base_pre, the UNFILTERED graph, so a declared adjacency requirement is satisfied by a neighbouring room regardless of what has_circulation strips. The stripping only denies ROUTING, which is correct. So 'a toilet adjacent to a bedroom is a positive even if there is no door' is already expressible -- but it is only scored where DECLARED, and 3 of 4 real programmes never declare it: only programme-house has t1 -\u003e adjacency [b1]. harbor-house (t vs r/n), maple-court (t/tt vs r/n) and health-centre (t9/t10 vs tr1) do not. Filed separately as homemaker-py-adj.","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"bug","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-26T10:06:54Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-26T13:38:20Z","closed_at":"2026-08-26T13:38:20Z","close_reason":"SHIPPED (DESIGN.md §39.7). usage: is a mandatory plain attribute of the space definition; vocabulary living/kitchen/bedroom/toilet/utility/none; missing or unknown is a load error from both parse paths. Code-level so it survives retype, never stamped on a leaf. has_circulation, fitness.access and the public-access check all key on declared usage; fitness._t0 deleted — no first-character type test remains anywhere. All 107 corpus entries migrated. MEASURED: connectivity model was ~4x too permissive; edges trimmed prefix-inferred vs declared, 3 seeds: harbor 18(9%)-\u003e79(39%), health-centre 12(8%)-\u003e59(40%), maple 53(17%)-\u003e123(39%); inaccessible fails 0-\u003e4, 2-\u003e3, 1-\u003e5. Harbor re-baseline seed 1/20k: 58 (15h/43s) -\u003e 61 (16h/45s), now reporting inaccessible-usable-space x2 plus level 0 and level 1 not connected — the count rose because the objective got honest.","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-ut5","title":"Update the 2v1 acceptance target: harbor's 15-fail reference was measured pre-ju3 against the 32-instance effective programme","description":"DESIGN.md 38.7 fixes the acceptance test for homemaker-py-2v1 as 'harbor-house reaches its known 15-fail floor in materially fewer than 1.7M evals, and without level 0/1 not connected'. That 15-fail figure comes from evolved-3M-nols-3, measured before homemaker-py-ju3 against the 32-instance EFFECTIVE programme (cr1/of/st1/st2 silently dropped or mis-parameterised). Against the real 37-instance programme the number will differ, so the target as written is not measurable any more.\\n\\nNeeded: migrate evolved-3M*.dom with experiments/migrate_ju3_rename.py, rescore against the renamed programme, and restate the 2v1 acceptance figure. The 39.3 re-baseline (55 fails, seed 1, 20k evals) is the new near-term reference but is not the long-budget floor.","acceptance_criteria":"evolved-3M*.dom committed and migrated; its post-ju3 fail count recorded in DESIGN.md; the 2v1 acceptance figure restated against it.","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"task","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-26T09:05:23Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-09-04T17:15:54Z","started_at":"2026-09-04T17:00:54Z","closed_at":"2026-09-04T17:15:54Z","close_reason":"Closed","comments":[{"id":"01a04a88-f365-774a-9f49-f6bda0dec0dc","issue_id":"homemaker-py-ut5","author":"Claude","text":"Now concrete and reproducible, since the owner committed the evolved-3M*.dom fixtures (0d4ae7a).\n\ntests/test_collapse_insearch.py::test_collapse_insearch_reproduces_94g_finish_time_result hard-codes 'assert len(f_base) == 15' against examples/harbor-house/evolved-3M.dom. Measured now:\n\n 86 fails at 0d4ae7a (post-39.4, before the ssz crinkliness change)\n 81 fails at 055d710 (after crinkliness: none on utility spaces)\n\nagainst the test's 15. The gap is the 39.4 namespace fix: the 15 was measured when harbor's effective programme was 32 instances because codes like cr1 were being read as generic circulation. The remaining 5 is this session's ssz change, in the expected direction and for the expected reason (utility spaces no longer emit crinkliness fails).\n\nSo this issue now has a failing test attached to it, which is the natural place to land the restated figure.","created_at":"2026-08-28T22:41:24Z"},{"id":"01a04c5b-e1c7-7cf2-a912-f9919cfb8ecb","issue_id":"homemaker-py-ut5","author":"Claude","text":"The failing test attached to this issue is fixed, but NOT by restating the\nfigure -- that is still this issue's job.\n\ntest_collapse_insearch_reproduces_94g_finish_time_result hard-coded both\nendpoints of the §17 result: 15 fails before collapse, 12 after. Its docstring\nsays the guarantee it exists to protect is that in-search collapse reaches the\nSAME layout as finish-time collapse on fixed geometry. Two independent constants\ndo not check that: they can both drift and stay equal, or both hold and mask an\ninequality.\n\nRewritten as test_collapse_insearch_matches_finish_time_collapse, which computes\nboth sides live and asserts they agree, plus that collapse does not make the\nlayout worse. Measured now: 82 -\u003e 58, and finish-time collapse independently\nreaches 58 at iters=3 and iters=6. The invariant holds; only the constants were\nstale.\n\nNote for whoever restates the figure: harbor's evolved-3M-nols-3.dom scores 82\nhere, not the 81 recorded earlier this session. The +1 is the Laundry Room's\ncrinkliness fail returning when the owner ruled laundries occupied and its\ncrinkliness: none declaration was removed (DESIGN.md §38.11).","created_at":"2026-08-29T07:11:25Z"},{"id":"01a06d65-b5f8-7d2b-ab47-0e15f8c59c1f","issue_id":"homemaker-py-ut5","author":"Claude","text":"Done. DESIGN.md gains 39.12; 38.7's acceptance paragraph is annotated in place.\n\nThe bead's premise was stale in one respect: experiments/migrate_ju3_rename.py\ndoes not exist. The rename approach was abandoned during ju3 in favour of\ntightening the matching rule at source (39.3), so evolved-3M*.dom parses\ncorrectly against today's 16-code / 37-instance harbor programme with no\nmigration. Rescored (fails / hard / soft / not-connected / missing instances):\n\n evolved-3M-nols.dom 69 32h/37s 2 4\n evolved-3M-nols-3.collapsed.dom 85 42h/43s 2 3\n evolved-3M-nols-2.dom 87 43h/44s 2 3\n evolved-3M-nols-3.dom 89 44h/45s 2 3\n evolved-3M.dom 145 101h/44s 1 22\n\nSo the \"15-fail floor\" layout scores 89. But those artefacts were evolved\nunder one objective and scored under another, so they are not a floor at all.\nThe 4x3-seed 500k cold-start baseline replaces them as the reference:\n\n programme-house 1 / 1 / 1 mean 1.0 sd 0.00 MDD(n=3) 0.0\n health-centre 4 / 9 / 5 mean 6.0 sd 2.65 MDD 6.6\n harbor-house 33 /43 /42 mean 39.3 sd 5.51 MDD 13.7\n maple-court 54 /73 /55 mean 60.7 sd 10.69 MDD 26.6\n\nTwo things fell out that matter more than the restated figure:\n\n1. Zero missing-space fails in all twelve runs. The dominant term in the 3M\n artefacts is not one the live search still fails on.\n2. Crinkliness is 112 of the 321 corpus fails (35%), all soft -- and 9gj says\n quality_uncrinkliness returns a flat hard 0.0 in exactly that regime. The\n largest single component of the residual is one the objective cannot\n descend. 66 of the 84 hard fails are one family: not-adjacent-to (28),\n inaccessible usable space (20), not connected (18) -- all access topology,\n mechanism in 39.9, two NULL attempts behind it.\n\nAcceptance test restated as: compare against the baseline table's mean, beat\nit by more than that programme's MDD at n\u003e=3 seeds on the same budget; and\ntreat \"level N not connected\" (present in 10 of 12 runs) as a separately\ntracked standing defect rather than a clause on an unrelated change.","created_at":"2026-09-04T17:09:37Z"}],"dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":3} -{"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-hxi","title":"Buried circulation and outside space are negative-value: search is rewarded for deleting the circulation spine","description":"Direct consequence of the zero-exposure bug. Measured on a constructed harbor-house seed: deleting a buried O leaf improved the raw score 85x and removed 7 fails; deleting a buried C leaf improved it 62x and removed 6 fails. Programme rooms are held in place ONLY by the missing-space fail cascade, not by contributing value -- deleting a buried k1/da1/m costs +15 fails, so they stay, but nothing positive keeps them. Circulation and outside leaves carry no missing-space requirement, so nothing keeps them at all. Observed live: in a 20k-eval harbor-house run, undivide/core_undivide account for a large share of recorded improvements (16 occurrences in the log) -- the search is literally deleting circulation to score better. This explains three prior negative results as a single mechanism: 18 graded circulation-connectivity (a tie-break signal cannot beat a 60x scalar gradient), 21/22 bridge_circulation (the operator inserts corridor leaves the objective immediately punishes), and the 'level N not connected' hard fails surviving \u003e1M evals in the 3M run.","notes":"Depends on the zero-exposure fix; may need no separate fix if (a)/(c) there restores a value gradient for circulation. Worth re-running the 18 and 21/22 A/Bs afterwards -- both may have been measuring a broken gradient rather than a bad idea.","status":"open","priority":1,"issue_type":"bug","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-25T23:14:40Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-25T23:14:40Z","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-hxi","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-ssz","type":"blocks","created_at":"2026-08-25T23:15:12Z","created_by":"Claude","metadata":"{}"},{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-hxi","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-2v1","type":"blocks","created_at":"2026-08-26T07:37:47Z","created_by":"Claude","metadata":"{}"}],"dependency_count":2,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} +{"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-hxi","title":"Buried circulation and outside space are negative-value: search is rewarded for deleting the circulation spine","description":"Direct consequence of the zero-exposure bug. Measured on a constructed harbor-house seed: deleting a buried O leaf improved the raw score 85x and removed 7 fails; deleting a buried C leaf improved it 62x and removed 6 fails. Programme rooms are held in place ONLY by the missing-space fail cascade, not by contributing value -- deleting a buried k1/da1/m costs +15 fails, so they stay, but nothing positive keeps them. Circulation and outside leaves carry no missing-space requirement, so nothing keeps them at all. Observed live: in a 20k-eval harbor-house run, undivide/core_undivide account for a large share of recorded improvements (16 occurrences in the log) -- the search is literally deleting circulation to score better. This explains three prior negative results as a single mechanism: 18 graded circulation-connectivity (a tie-break signal cannot beat a 60x scalar gradient), 21/22 bridge_circulation (the operator inserts corridor leaves the objective immediately punishes), and the 'level N not connected' hard fails surviving \u003e1M evals in the 3M run.","notes":"Depends on the zero-exposure fix; may need no separate fix if (a)/(c) there restores a value gradient for circulation. Worth re-running the 18 and 21/22 A/Bs afterwards -- both may have been measuring a broken gradient rather than a bad idea.","status":"open","priority":1,"issue_type":"bug","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-25T23:14:40Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-25T23:14:40Z","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-hxi","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-ssz","type":"blocks","created_at":"2026-08-25T23:15:12Z","created_by":"Claude","metadata":"{}"},{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-hxi","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-2v1","type":"blocks","created_at":"2026-08-26T07:37:47Z","created_by":"Claude","metadata":"{}"}],"comments":[{"id":"01a075b1-c425-70a6-b20c-c4d98e044acf","issue_id":"homemaker-py-hxi","author":"Claude","text":"Owner ruling (2026-09-06), recorded here so this is not just a suspicion:\n\"the weird scoring of outdoor and circulation space ... definitely needs\nfixing\", in the context of abandoning the Perl oracle because \"many of the\nremaining problems have been carried in from the perl\".\n\nMeasured numbers to work from, over the twelve 500k baseline layouts\n(DESIGN.md 39.18), value returned per unit cost by leaf kind:\n\n outside, ground 7.40 -\u003e 1.64 after 39.18/39.19\n roof terrace 2.69 -\u003e 0.87\n room 0.34 -\u003e 0.66\n circulation 0.02 -\u003e 0.07\n\n39.19 fixed the terrace (owner's ruling: a terrace must not be worth more per\nm2 than a real internal room). Circulation is untouched and remains by a wide\nmargin the worst thing a building can contain -- a corridor returns about a\ntenth of what a room does, while the programme structurally REQUIRES corridors\nto connect anything.\n\nNote the two components, because they need separating:\n * value_circulation = 50 against value_inside = 300, a 6x rate gap;\n * mean circulation quality 0.076 under the product aggregation (5 of 7\n factors bite it, and size 0.270 / crinkliness 0.376 are both harsh on a\n long thin buried leaf). 39.18 raised that to ~0.21 but the rate gap is\n untouched.\n\n39.9/39.10 established that \"level N not connected\" survives because the\nresize destroys constructed connectivity, and both repair attempts measured\nNULL. This bead is the other half of that story: even when the search HAS a\nspine, the objective is paying it to delete it.\n\nAny fix here changes what \"good\" means, so it needs the re-baseline\n(homemaker-py-bk9) either before it or alongside it.","created_at":"2026-09-06T07:49:39Z"}],"dependency_count":2,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":1} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-ssz","title":"Zero-exposure leaves score hard quality=0: the objective assigns no value to any interior room","description":"fitness.quality_uncrinkliness returns a hard 0.0 when a leaf has no daylit wall (area_outside==0 =\u003e crink==0 =\u003e 'if not crink: return 0.0'). Because evaluate_leaf MULTIPLIES factors into quality, and process_storey accumulates 'value += quality * rate * area', such a leaf contributes EXACTLY ZERO value while still adding cost. Measured on the full default construction stack (leaf_sharing, depth_balanced, interior_outside, collapse_insearch), 3 seeds each: harbor-house 46% of interior leaves, health-centre 45%, maple-court 56% are zero-exposure. On a converged 20k-eval harbor-house run (seed 1, 57 fails) 14 of 17 crinkliness fails are zero-exposure, and ~470 m2 of the 721 m2 ground floor plate sits at zero value. This is the mathematically consistent limit of the gaussian (1/crink -\u003e inf), so it is a faithful port, not a porting bug -- but it means the objective's gradient does not describe a good building.","design":"Options, none yet chosen: (a) floor the factor at a small epsilon instead of 0 so buried leaves keep a value gradient and remain rankable; (b) make the gaussian one-sided (clip to 1.0 on the compact side) so being LESS exposed than target is not punished as hard as being over-exposed -- architecturally, a compact well-insulated room is not a defect; (c) exempt circulation/store types from the daylight requirement entirely (uncrinkliness_circulation currently uses the same [5/6, 1.1/3] as habitable rooms, so internal corridors -- completely normal architecture -- are guaranteed failures). Any change here invalidates prior fail-count baselines, so it needs its own A/B and a DESIGN.md section.","acceptance_criteria":"A/B on harbor-house + maple-court at fixed budget showing the chosen variant lowers hard-fail count without inflating soft; DESIGN.md section recording the result; prior baselines re-stated under the new objective.","status":"in_progress","priority":1,"issue_type":"bug","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-25T23:14:40Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-26T16:34:22Z","started_at":"2026-08-26T16:34:22Z","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-ssz","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-2v1","type":"blocks","created_at":"2026-08-26T07:37:47Z","created_by":"Claude","metadata":"{}"}],"comments":[{"id":"01a03ef6-9e45-7a1d-9f3c-3b3f0bd8a98f","issue_id":"homemaker-py-ssz","author":"Claude","text":"Diagnosis reframed and implementation landed (189efdb, DESIGN.md §38.8).\n\n§38.6's null was an artefact of the modes, not evidence about the objective: quality_uncrinkliness reaches `if not crink` before any mode logic that matters, so floor gave buried leaves 0.01, compact_ok contradicted itself (announced compact-is-fine, then returned the floor for the most compact case of all), and exempt_circulation reached at most a third of them. Rescue rates 0%/0%/0%/21-33%. §38.6 also used the pre-§39.4 prefix rule, sweeping programme rooms like cr1 in as circulation.\n\nReal finding: two thirds of buried leaves are spaces that architecturally do not want a window (stores, WCs, plant, corridors, covered courtyards), scored identically with a windowless bedroom. New mode usage_daylight keys the requirement on the declared usage. Fixed-budget search A/B running now; arms are re-scored under stock urb so the permissive modes cannot win by deleting a fail category.","created_at":"2026-08-26T16:45:45Z"},{"id":"01a03f38-06bd-7bb8-8f8b-8144c2ac3364","issue_id":"homemaker-py-ssz","author":"Claude","text":"Fixed-budget A/B done (budget 3000, 3 seeds, both programmes, arms scored under stock urb). NOT A PASS, and n=3 cannot decide it.\n\nPaired hard-fail deltas vs urb -- usage_daylight harbor [0,-1,-10], maple [0,+2,-10]. The whole signal is seed 2 in both programmes, and seed 2 is the seed where stock itself does worst. Two seeds in three are flat or slightly worse. On that seed the soft count rises as much as hard falls (harbor -10h/+9s, maple -10h/+15s); totals harbor 62-\u003e61, maple 120-\u003e125.\n\nSince arms are stock-scored, that is a real trade of hard for soft, not a relabelling. Under the tiered comparator (n_hard primary) it is progress; under this issue's acceptance criterion ('without inflating soft') it is not. That tension is gvb's question too.\n\nusage_daylight stays default off. Higher-power run launched: urb vs usage_daylight only, 10 seeds, both programmes.\n\nDecided regardless of the search A/B: the diagnostic half. Daylight is demanded of two thirds of the buried population that architecturally does not want it, and §38.6's contrary null was an artefact of three modes that never touched those leaves.","created_at":"2026-08-26T17:57:11Z"},{"id":"01a04a89-3805-7419-af9b-7b31a110d898","issue_id":"homemaker-py-ssz","author":"Claude","text":"Shipped the declared per-space crinkliness mechanism (055d710, DESIGN.md §38.10) per the owner's ruling that the daylight requirement is already defined in the crinkliness -- no separate attribute, no usage-keying.\n\nCrinkliness was the only leaf quality factor with no per-space target (size/width/proportion all have one). A space now declares crinkliness: none / [t,s], or omits it for the global target. clips the compact side only, so a store may be buried but not be a starfish. Backward compatible: absent key = today's behaviour, so behaviour changes only where a config declares.\n\n18 corpus spaces migrated (usage: utility). Crinkliness fails 271 -\u003e 243; not-defects 136 (50%) -\u003e 108 (44%).\n\nREMAINING, and needs a ruling before ssz can close: the last 108 phantom fails are two populations with no spaces: entry --\n generic C (internal circulation): 85, key uncrinkliness_circulation\n generic O/S (covered outside, sahn): 23, falls through to uncrinkliness\n\nuncrinkliness_circulation exists as its own key and holds [5/6, 1.1/3], byte-identical to the habitable target -- a key created so corridors could differ, never given a different value. It is now settable to none (tested) but the default is left alone: corridors were not among the groups ruled on and this is 63% of the remainder.","created_at":"2026-08-28T22:41:42Z"},{"id":"01a04a89-964c-7107-b9f6-7597540a9c59","issue_id":"homemaker-py-ssz","author":"Claude","text":"Correction to the previous comment: a shell backtick ate a word. The sentence\nshould read:\n\n `crinkliness: none` clips the compact side ONLY, it does not switch the\n factor off. Over-exposure is still penalised, because a crinkly leaf costs\n envelope whatever it holds. So a store may be buried, but a store may not be\n a starfish.\n\nEverything else in that comment stands.","created_at":"2026-08-28T22:42:06Z"},{"id":"01a04aa6-d83f-7513-ada7-4a3fee8e804a","issue_id":"homemaker-py-ssz","author":"Claude","text":"RETRACTION. Owner's ruling: corridors need daylight; only rooms not occupied\nfrom day to day (cupboard, store, plant room) do without it.\n\nThat overturns the classification my 61% headline rested on. I had exempted\ninternal circulation, covered courtyards, WCs, laundries and reception on my own\ninference; none of those are exempt. Re-measured with the classification read\nfrom the corpus rather than guessed:\n\n 24 of 271 crinkliness fails (9%) were not defects -- not 136 (50%), not 61%.\n\nI overstated it by about six times by inventing a classification instead of\nasking for one.\n\nConsequences:\n - uncrinkliness_circulation stays at [5/6, 1.1/3]. Its equality with the\n habitable target is the CORRECT answer, not an untuned value: corridors want\n daylight on the same terms as rooms.\n - corpus declarations narrowed 18 -\u003e 14. usage: utility was too coarse a\n proxy; it swept in Laundry Rooms and a Sterilisation Room, which are\n occupied. What remains is storage, plant/mechanical, utilities closets and a\n records room.\n\nWhat survives unchanged, none of it dependent on the classification: the §38.6\ncritique of the three modes (facts about the code); usage_daylight being\nmis-keyed; the §38.8 A/B yardstick being wrong; and the per-space crinkliness\nmechanism itself, which is the owner's design.\n\nWhat this does to the issue as a whole: the opening measurement (45-56% of\ninterior leaves are zero-exposure) was right, but the reading was wrong. Under\nthis ruling a buried leaf usually IS a defect, so scoring it zero is largely\ncorrect. What remains of the complaint is narrower and is about search mechanics\nrather than truth -- a hard 0.0 cannot rank two bad layouts against each other.\nFiling that separately; it is not the calibration fault this issue spent its\nlength chasing.","created_at":"2026-08-28T23:14:03Z"},{"id":"01a04aae-243a-7f3d-970c-452f19986751","issue_id":"homemaker-py-ssz","author":"Claude","text":"Records Room ruled: it is a store, stays exempt. No config change -- health-centre\nre1 already declares crinkliness: none. The corpus classification is settled at 14\nspaces: storage, plant/mechanical, utilities closets, records room.","created_at":"2026-08-28T23:22:02Z"}],"dependency_count":1,"dependent_count":2,"comment_count":6} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-tdp","title":"Frontage-budget feasibility bound: harbor-house and maple-court are ~3x short of the exposed wall their own crinkliness constraint demands","description":"Closed-form bound, no search needed. Crinkliness fails when 1/crink \u003e 1.6202 (solving gaussian(x,1,5/6,1.1/3)=FAIL_THRESHOLD), and crink = L*h/A, so every interior leaf needs exposed wall length L \u003e= A/(1.6202*h) -- per storey, A_storey/4.86 metres at h=3. Supply vs demand per storey: harbor-house 54m supplied / 148m needed (2.7x short); maple-court 56m / 162m (2.9x short); health-centre 43m / 41m (feasible); programme-house 24m / 12m (2x surplus). The deficit comes from half the plot perimeter being marked 'private' in harbor/maple -- area_outside skips private/fortified edges. This PREDICTS the corpus fail-count plateau: the two programmes that are frontage-short are exactly the two that plateau (harbor 30-40, maple 74-84 fails), and the two with surplus are the two that effectively solve (programme-house reached 1 fail in a 12k-eval run here). Causal check: relabelling harbor's two private edges as open (identical geometry and programme, perimeter labels only) cut zero-exposure leaves 52%-\u003e19% and seeder crinkliness fails 16.5-\u003e12.0 over 6 seeds.","design":"Ship the bound as a pre-flight check (a 'homemaker-programme-check' style report, or a warning from evolve.py at startup): given a plot and programme, report required vs available frontage and the courtyard area needed to close the gap. This is the cheap, no-ground-truth-needed version of what 2g7.2 objective calibration wanted -- it answers 'is this programme even satisfiable' without needing traced human plans.","acceptance_criteria":"A tool/check that reports the frontage budget per programme dir; DESIGN.md section with the derivation and the corpus table; the plateau programmes flagged as frontage-infeasible-as-specified.","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"task","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-25T23:14:40Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-26T16:20:08Z","started_at":"2026-08-26T16:08:13Z","closed_at":"2026-08-26T16:20:08Z","close_reason":"Shipped as `evolve._preflight`, but the headline claim in this issue's title is\nRETRACTED. See DESIGN.md §39.11 (and the partial retraction inserted at §38.3).\n\nWhat was wrong: the \"2.7x / 2.9x short\" figures were computed for a FULLY BUILT\nplot. None of these programmes ask for a fully built plot. Recomputed against\nthe area each programme actually demands (demand / storeys), harbor-house and\nmaple-court are NOT frontage-infeasible -- they need 49 m2 and 22 m2 of\ncourtyard respectively, against 277 m2 and 424 m2 of spare plot. The bound\nitself (L \u003e= A/(1.6202*h)) is sound; it was applied to the wrong quantity.\n\nWhat survives: exactly one corpus programme is infeasible, and not for daylight\nreasons. health-centre demands 240 m2 of floor on a 183 m2 plot (131%). That is\nvisible in the geometry -- every room lands at 0.60x its declared target, 100%\nof them undersized, uniformly. harbor-house and maple-court hit target almost\nexactly (median area / (target * share) = 1.01x), so the plateau is NOT\nexplained by an unsatisfiable brief and remains unexplained.\n\nShipped:\n - `evolve._preflight(programme_dir)`, run at startup before the run banner.\n Two closed-form checks: (1) does demanded floor area fit the plot,\n (2) is there enough daylit wall for it. Advisory only, never blocks a run.\n Fires on health-centre (both) and harbor-house/maple-court (frontage only);\n silent on programme-house.\n - `experiments/diag_exposure_frontage.py frontage` reports the full budget.\n - DESIGN.md §39.11 with the corrected corpus table; §38.3 marked PARTLY\n RETRACTED and cross-referenced.\n\nBoth the check and the diagnostic measure plot area and frontage through\n`geometry`, not the raw init.dom corners, so they carry the `wall_outer` inset\nand plot rotation, and \"daylit\" means exactly what `Fitness.area_outside` means\nby it (external boundary, perimeter type not private/fortified). An earlier\nhand-rolled version of these figures skipped the inset and was ~1 m / ~14 m2\noptimistic per plot; the numbers in §39.11 are the corrected ones.\n\nAcceptance criteria 1 and 2 met. Criterion 3 (\"plateau programmes flagged as\nfrontage-infeasible-as-specified\") is withdrawn as false, not deferred.\n","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-2g7.4","title":"Exact shape-curve inner loop (Otten/Stockmeyer DP) replacing Nelder-Mead","description":"The classic slicing-floorplan result applied to our exact representation: each leaf's size/width/proportion constraints define a feasible-shape region; these compose bottom-up through the slicing tree as piecewise shape curves, yielding in ONE linear pass (no iteration): (a) whether ANY ratio assignment satisfies all per-leaf shape constraints, and (b) the ratios that realize a chosen point on the root curve. Today the same question costs an 80-eval NM run per child (~all of the 3M-eval budget) and answers it only approximately. Plan: (1) prototype on harbor-house-l0 with a rectangular plot approximation; (2) validate against innerloop.optimise — DP-feasible topologies must score \u003e= NM result when polished, DP-infeasible must never reach 0 shape fails under NM; (3) wire as a PRE-FILTER: prune shape-infeasible children before any native eval, and warm-start NM from DP ratios (or replace NM entirely where the plot is near-rectangular; keep NM as final polish for skew). CAVEATS to model honestly: crinkliness/access/adjacency are NOT in the DP (graph terms, not per-leaf shape) — the DP handles the size/width/proportion family only, which is fine for pruning; equal-offset skew-quad geometry means DP areas are approximate — measure the approximation error on real plots first (harbor plot is a near-rect quad). Expected payoff: 100-1000x cheaper feasibility, turning topology search into enumerate-and-prune and unlocking the racing/MAP-Elites/CP issues. Cf. §34: autodiff failed on wall-clock; this is a different attack — exactness via structure, not gradients.","acceptance_criteria":"on harbor-house-l0: DP verdict agrees with NM-polished shape-fail outcome on \u003e=95% of 200 random topologies; measured speedup \u003e=50x per feasibility decision; approximation error on the skew plot quantified","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"feature","assignee":"Bruno Postle","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-08-02T09:15:04Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-08-02T22:42:15Z","started_at":"2026-08-02T18:39:05Z","closed_at":"2026-08-02T22:42:15Z","close_reason":"Prototype PASS: 99.0% agreement (\u003e=95%), 93.6x speedup (\u003e=50x), approximation error quantified (7.5% bbox overestimate). See DESIGN.md §37.2. Not wired into product this session -- follow-up homemaker-py-6xh filed.","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-2g7.4","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-2g7","type":"parent-child","created_at":"2026-08-02T10:15:04Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"}],"comments":[{"id":"019fc645-557c-7351-9349-d693e5eefa2b","issue_id":"homemaker-py-2g7.4","author":"Bruno Postle","text":"Post-close correction (user review): the prototype's rectangular\napproximation used an axis-aligned global bbox for each quad's (w,h) --\ncorrect only by coincidence on harbor-house-l0's near-axis-aligned plot\n(~7.5% area error). A real building's orthogonal walls need not align to\nthe plot's survey/CRS axes; confirmed by rotating the plot 45deg, where\nbbox error jumped to 102%.\n\nFixed: (w,h) now measured from edge lengths (edge0+edge2)/2,\n(edge1+edge3)/2 -- rotation-invariant by construction -- and the\nparent/child composition rule (which dimension sums vs. is shared) is now\nderived EXACTLY from child.rotation parity (verified float-exact\nidentity) instead of the empirical geometric heuristic the closed version\nused (which, tried alone without the parity fix, regressed accuracy\n99.0% -\u003e 95.5%).\n\nRe-validated: 99.0% on harbor-house-l0 unrotated (matches original, 0\nfalse negatives), 100% at 97x speedup on the SAME plot rotated 45deg.\nSee DESIGN.md §37.2 (Correction 1 / Correction 2) for full detail.\nhomemaker-py-6xh (production wiring follow-up) still applies.","created_at":"2026-08-03T06:17:40Z"}],"dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":1,"comment_count":1}