From 45eff37f9674b3c765a79352dbd7be302864288b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Claude Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 23:22:02 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Records Room ruled a store; stays exempt No config change -- health-centre re1 already declares crinkliness: none. This settles the corpus classification at 14 spaces: storage, plant/mechanical, utilities closets, records room. Replaces the hedge in 38.11 with the ruling. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB --- .beads/issues.jsonl | 2 +- DESIGN.md | 3 +-- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/.beads/issues.jsonl b/.beads/issues.jsonl index e3d6dae..7951e1b 100644 --- a/.beads/issues.jsonl +++ b/.beads/issues.jsonl @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ {"_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":"open","priority":1,"issue_type":"task","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-26T09:05:23Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-26T09:05:23Z","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"}],"dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":1} {"_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-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"}],"dependency_count":1,"dependent_count":2,"comment_count":5} +{"_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} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-2g7.3","title":"Hard/soft fail tiering: 'solved' = zero hard fails","description":"Lex-by-total-count treats a crinkly wall the same as a missing room, so search polishes shape taxes instead of fixing structure — the 3M-run best still carries 'level 0/1 not connected' and wrong-level fails after 1.7M evals. Split fails into HARD (missing space, wrong/required level, level connectivity, circulation connectivity, stairs, covered-outside) and SOFT (crinkliness, proportion, size, width, edge-too-long) tiers. Outer comparator becomes (-hard, -soft, fitness); 'solved' is defined as zero hard fails. GUARDS: (1) the inner-loop 0.5^n cliff must keep protecting against trading into new fails (§4.5/§4.9 — rerun the 0/9 inner-loop-protection check); (2) rerun the §4.9 outer A/B: the scheme must not reintroduce the scalar pathology; (3) §11.4 warns comparator reshaping alone does not escape topology basins — the claim here is narrower: budget stops being spent on soft fails while hard fails remain, and reporting becomes meaningful. The tier map lives in fitness.py next to the fail emission sites so new fail strings must declare a tier. Can start before the calibration issue lands but final tier assignments should be reviewed against its findings.","acceptance_criteria":"tiered comparator behind a flag with A/B on harbor+maple (3 seeds, 20k evals): hard-fail count at budget strictly better or equal on mean, no §4.9 regression; report shows hard/soft split","notes":"ACCEPTANCE A/B COMPLETE — PASS (2026-08-02, experiments/tier_ab_2g7_3.py,\nharbor-house + maple-court, 3 seeds, budget 20000, leaf_sharing=True,\nn_workers=4, wall ~2h53m):\n\n harbor-house hard mean: flat 11.67 -\u003e tiered 5.33 (soft 29.00 -\u003e 42.33)\n maple-court hard mean: flat 19.33 -\u003e tiered 14.00 (soft 71.33 -\u003e 87.67)\n\nHard-fail mean strictly better on BOTH programmes at fixed budget — the\nrequired acceptance bar. Soft/total rise as expected (budget redirected from\npolishing shape fails to structural ones). Full per-seed log at\nscratch/tier_ab_2g7_3/log.txt (not committed — scratch output, regenerate via\nthe script if needed).\n\nGuards: (1) inner-loop 0.5^n cliff untouched by construction (no diff to\ninnerloop.py or the existing 0.5**len(failures) line) — not re-measured\nempirically, doesn't need to be. (2) tiered key is still lexicographic, not a\nblended scalar, so structurally immune to the §4.8 scalar pathology;\nencoded as tests/test_driver.py::test_use_tiers_prefers_fewer_hard_over_fewer_total_fails.\n\nDESIGN.md §37.1 written up with full table and rationale. Feature lands\ndefault-off (--use-tiers / HOMEMAKER_USE_TIERS / driver.search(use_tiers=)),\nso no existing reproduction changes.\n\nFollow-on (not blocking, filed separately): convergence-SPEED comparison\n(evals to 0 hard fails, tiered vs flat, same budget) — this A/B measured\nfail composition at a fixed budget snapshot, not time-to-solved.","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"feature","assignee":"Bruno Postle","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-08-02T09:14:14Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-08-02T17:51:18Z","started_at":"2026-08-02T09:58:53Z","closed_at":"2026-08-02T17:51:18Z","close_reason":"Acceptance A/B passed on both harbor-house and maple-court (hard-fail mean strictly better under tiering); guards verified; DESIGN.md §37.1 written up.","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-2g7.3","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-2g7","type":"parent-child","created_at":"2026-08-02T10:14:14Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"}],"dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} diff --git a/DESIGN.md b/DESIGN.md index ffae8bb..2e31a4e 100644 --- a/DESIGN.md +++ b/DESIGN.md @@ -5408,8 +5408,7 @@ genuinely unoccupied: | health-centre | General Storage, Plant / Mechanical Room, Records Room | | maple-court | Ground/First/Second Floor Storage, Mechanical/Electrical Room, Utilities Closet | -*(Records Room is the one debatable entry — a store you fetch a file from, not a -desk. Flip it to a declared target if it is meant to be worked in.)* +*(Records Room was queried and ruled on: it is a store, and stays exempt.)* **What survives §38.8/§38.9 unchanged**, because none of it depended on the classification: