From 6e8bcce8f338190f114bb660b40082b0b143d28b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Claude Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2026 14:47:53 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Correct a wrong bead ID in 38.20 (2xk -> 7t1) The follow-up issue was cited by an ID written before the issue was created. The real one is homemaker-py-7t1. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB --- .beads/issues.jsonl | 2 +- DESIGN.md | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/.beads/issues.jsonl b/.beads/issues.jsonl index eee7c2f..782dd37 100644 --- a/.beads/issues.jsonl +++ b/.beads/issues.jsonl @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-8cs","title":"Experiment: warm-vs-cold start of inner loop (Lamarckian inheritance)","description":"DESIGN.md §5.6, §4.6. Warm-starting a child topology's inner loop from the parent's optimised ratios is the main lever for cutting per-topology cost (~3 min/topology cold). Apply single topology mutations to optimised corpus designs, re-optimise warm (surviving cuts keep values, new cuts get heuristic defaults) vs cold, compare oracle-call counts to convergence at equal final fitness.","acceptance_criteria":"Speedup factor measured across \u003e=10 mutated topologies; decision recorded (expect order-of-magnitude; if \u003c2x, revisit §4.6 Phase-2 scoping)","notes":"Experiment script committed (experiments/warm_vs_cold.py, 1cc86c8) and machinery validated oracle-free; one mutated child scored through the oracle OK. Waiting on homemaker-py-gp2 reference run to finish, then execute under URB_NO_OCCLUSION=1 (3 parents x 400 evals + 12 children x 2 x 200 evals, ~1.5-2 h oracle time). Default budgets: parent 400, child 200; target = evals to 95% of best final.","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"task","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-11T23:36:58Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-12T11:44:45Z","closed_at":"2026-06-12T11:44:45Z","close_reason":"Measured (URB_NO_OCCLUSION=1, parent budget 400, child 200, 12 single mutations across 3 designs): cold start reached 95% of warm final in 0/12 cases within budget — speedup unbounded at practical budgets; warm finals beat cold finals x1.2-x4 in 12/12; 6/12 warm starts were within 95% at 1 eval (near-neutral mutations). Decision: Lamarckian warm-starting is MANDATORY in the memetic driver (homemaker-py-b39), not an optimisation; cold starts produce strictly worse geometry at equal budget. Note: 2 undivides were exactly fitness-neutral (same-type merge == Merge_Divided equivalence) — locality datum for homemaker-py-nyb.","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-8cs","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-1p0","type":"blocks","created_at":"2026-06-12T00:39:34Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"}],"dependency_count":1,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-av5","title":"Batched oracle: score many .dom files per invocation","description":"oracle.py currently scores one .dom per urb-fitness.pl call (~1.65 s/dom). DESIGN.md §4.6: batching amortises Perl startup to ~0.99 s/dom and is required so population/batch optimisers can score a whole generation in one oracle call. Extend oracle.py with a batch API: write N .dom files, one perl invocation, parse N .score/.fails pairs. Keep the single-file path for compatibility.","acceptance_criteria":"Batch of 35 corpus files scores in one perl invocation; per-file results identical to single-file calls; measured s/dom reported","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"task","assignee":"Bruno Postle","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-11T23:36:56Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-12T00:14:06Z","started_at":"2026-06-11T23:50:40Z","closed_at":"2026-06-12T00:14:06Z","close_reason":"score_batch() lands in oracle.py; 35-file corpus parity verified single-vs-batch (1e-12 rel fitness, exact fail sets); 0.98 s/dom batched vs 1.27 single, x1.30","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":1,"comment_count":0} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-ioe","title":"Is collapse_insearch=True still the right default under the current objective?","description":"The default was flipped OFF -\u003e ON by homemaker-py-1ph (DESIGN.md §20, 2026-07-24) on the strength of a programme-house N=20 sweep: mean 7.95 -\u003e 7.10, 11W/6L/3T, paired t p ~= 0.028. homemaker-py-d86 (§38.18) has now confirmed that verdict was sound FOR ITS OWN ERA -- it reproduces on a pre-iio commit, and the iio stale-share bug is structurally unreachable on that protocol because programme-house declares count: 1 for every code, so no leaf ever carries a share.\n\nBut the objective has changed substantially since, three times over, and all of it after 1ph:\n\n §39.4 the generic-namespace fix -- codes like cr1 were being read as generic\n circulation, so 14% of harbor's programme was silently optional\n §38.10 / §38.11 crinkliness declared per space; 14 corpus spaces now declare\n crinkliness: none\n §38.12 the missing-space cascade no longer weighted by YAML verbosity, a fixed\n 5 fails per missing instance instead of 3-5\n\ncollapse_insearch runs collapse_global inside every fitness eval, and collapse_global's assignment is valued against exactly the quality factors those changes touched. So the ON-beats-OFF margin was measured against an objective that no longer exists. The direction is plausibly unchanged -- but it is currently an assumption carried on a superseded measurement, and it is a DEFAULT, so every run inherits it.\n\nThe protocol and harness already exist: experiments/rerun_1ph_protocol.sh runs programme-house, budget 3000, 4 workers, seeds 1-20, ON vs OFF, both arms finished with --collapse, and takes about 6 minutes.\n\nNote when re-running: n_workers is an algorithm parameter (§38.17), so keep 4 workers to stay comparable with the published protocol, and record it with the result.","acceptance_criteria":"The 1ph protocol re-run at N=20 on the current codebase and objective, with the ON-vs-OFF verdict either reconfirmed or restated; if the margin has moved materially, DESIGN.md §20's default-flip rationale is updated to say so and the default is reconsidered on the new numbers.","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"task","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-29T13:36:18Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-29T13:57:45Z","started_at":"2026-08-29T13:36:32Z","closed_at":"2026-08-29T13:57:45Z","close_reason":"Re-validated: the default STANDS, but with two caveats worth carrying\n(DESIGN.md §38.19).\n\nRe-ran the 1ph protocol as published on the current codebase and objective --\nprogramme-house, budget 3000, 4 workers, ON vs OFF, both arms finished with\n--collapse.\n\n N OFF ON W/L/T diff t p\n published 1ph (07-24) 20 7.95 7.10 11/6/3 +0.85 2.38 0.028\n historical re-run (§38.18) 20 8.05 7.10 11/6/3 +0.95 2.59 --\n current objective 20 7.85 7.15 10/7/3 +0.70 1.82 0.069\n current objective 40 7.60 7.03 21/14/5 +0.57 2.01 0.045\n current objective 60 7.58 7.02 29/19/12 +0.57 2.45 0.017\n\nAt N=60: mean diff +0.567 fails/seed, paired t=2.454 (df=59), p=0.0171 exact,\n95% CI [+0.105, +1.029] excluding zero. Wilcoxon signed-rank cross-check agrees\n(p=0.0138), which matters because fail counts are small integers and normality\nis not obvious.\n\nCaveat 1: the effect is about a third smaller than published (+0.57 vs +0.85).\nPartly regression from a slightly lucky N=20 draw, partly plausible real erosion\n-- several fails collapse_global used to clear have been redefined out of\nexistence or made harder by §39.4 / §38.10-12.\n\nCaveat 2, the more useful one: THE PUBLISHED N=20 CAN NO LONGER DETECT ITS OWN\nEFFECT. At exactly the published sample size the current answer is p ~= 0.069, a\nnull by the conventional threshold. Had I run N=20 and stopped, the honest report\nwould have been \"the 1ph verdict no longer reproduces\" and the default would have\nlooked unjustified. It took N=60 to resolve. That is the \"8sh/1ph/qi6/lj3\npattern\" this log already warns about, now biting the flagship result itself.\nAny future re-validation of this default needs N \u003e= 40; N=20 should not be\ntrusted to settle it either way.\n\n§20 annotated in place so a reader of the original claim sees the current figure.\nHarness now takes a seed range (APPEND=1 to extend a sweep); results in\nexperiments/results/ioe_1ph_current_objective.tsv.\n","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} -{"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-vjd","title":"cpsat assignment ~7.5x slower after the 3qj adjacency: re-check §39.5's cpsat-vs-greedy verdict","description":"Declaring harbor's t -\u003e n adjacency (homemaker-py-3qj, DESIGN.md §38.14) made the CP-SAT room-labelling model markedly harder. constructive_topology seeding, 3-seed average:\\n\\n harbor greedy 0.06s -\u003e 0.06s (unchanged) cpsat 0.28s -\u003e 2.11s (7.5x)\\n maple greedy 0.03s -\u003e 0.03s (unchanged) cpsat 0.47s -\u003e 1.37s (2.9x)\\n\\nassign_solver defaults to greedy so ordinary runs pay nothing, and mutate_reassign/enable_reassign are opt-in too. But §39.5 concluded cpsat beats greedy on both programmes, and that was measured on a cheaper problem than the corpus now poses. The verdict needs re-checking on quality-per-second, not just quality.\\n\\nAlso worth checking whether cpsat.max_deterministic_time is now being hit, which would mean it is returning early rather than solving -- that would change the quality side of the comparison too, silently.","acceptance_criteria":"cpsat vs greedy re-measured on the current corpus for both solution quality AND wall time; §39.5's verdict either reconfirmed or restated; if max_deterministic_time is being hit, that is recorded and the limit reconsidered.","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"task","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-29T10:57:26Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-29T14:47:36Z","started_at":"2026-08-29T14:20:49Z","closed_at":"2026-08-29T14:47:36Z","close_reason":"Re-measured. Three findings (DESIGN.md §38.20).\n\n1. A LIVE BUG IN THE CAP, found on the way. solve_room_labels sets a\ndeterministic work-unit budget (max_deterministic_time=4.0) and a wall-clock\nbackstop, with the comment that the wall clock is \"a pathological-case backstop\nonly\". At its 2.0s value it had become THE BINDING CONSTRAINT: on harbor, 2 of\n24 solves returned FEASIBLE not OPTIMAL, wall time hit exactly 2010 ms, and the\ndeterministic budget was never reached (max 2.483 of 4.0). Those labellings were\nboth suboptimal AND load-dependent -- the wall clock is precisely the cap §39.5\nadded the deterministic one to escape. Cause: §38.14's `t -\u003e n` adjacency makes\nthe model much harder, and the 2s value dated from when solves took ~124 ms.\nRaised to 30s; now 24/24 harbor and 36/36 maple solves are OPTIMAL with the\ndeterministic budget still in headroom (max 3.569/4.0).\n\n2. THE VERDICT REVERSES. Re-measured deterministically (fdp's id()-ordering fix\nmeans the arms no longer differ by memory layout), 12 constructed seeds, scored\ncanonically:\n\n harbor greedy 722h/601s = 1323 0.079 s/seed\n harbor cpsat 908h/640s = 1548 1.623 s/seed\n maple greedy 777h/987s = 1764 0.063 s/seed\n maple cpsat 1213h/1043s= 2256 1.327 s/seed\n\ncpsat LOSES on both, +225 and +492 fails, at ~21x the seeding time, concentrated\nin hard fails.\n\n3. TIME AND QUALITY HAVE DIFFERENT CAUSES. Removing §38.14's `t -\u003e n` from\nharbor: cpsat goes 1.623 -\u003e 0.193 s/seed (8.4x faster) but still +205 vs greedy\n(was +225). So the adjacency explains the time blow-up and ~9% of the quality\ngap; the regression is otherwise pre-existing.\n\nSquaring with §39.5: that section records cpsat returning 194/180/171/182 over\nfour identical 10-seed aggregates before the determinism work. Its 10-fail\nharbor margin (102 vs 92) sits well inside a noise band that wide, and was\nmeasured with fdp's id()-ordered room_slots still live. So the seeder-level\n\"cpsat wins\" claim was never established rather than being overturned. §39.5\nannotated in place.\n\nCaveat stated in the write-up: absolute totals are ~6x §39.5's because the\nobjective has changed (§39.4, §38.10-12), so they are not directly comparable to\nthat table. The greedy-vs-cpsat comparison within this measurement is\nlike-for-like and is what the verdict rests on.\n\nNo default changes -- assign_solver was already greedy for §37.7's independent\nreason, and this reinforces it. What changes is that \"cpsat wins the seeder A/B\"\nshould no longer be cited as a reason to pursue it.\n\nCost recorded and filed as homemaker-py-2xk: the cap fix takes the test suite\nfrom ~4.5 to ~10 min, and the tests cannot opt out because constructive_topology\ndoes not thread the solver limits through.\n","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} +{"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-vjd","title":"cpsat assignment ~7.5x slower after the 3qj adjacency: re-check §39.5's cpsat-vs-greedy verdict","description":"Declaring harbor's t -\u003e n adjacency (homemaker-py-3qj, DESIGN.md §38.14) made the CP-SAT room-labelling model markedly harder. constructive_topology seeding, 3-seed average:\\n\\n harbor greedy 0.06s -\u003e 0.06s (unchanged) cpsat 0.28s -\u003e 2.11s (7.5x)\\n maple greedy 0.03s -\u003e 0.03s (unchanged) cpsat 0.47s -\u003e 1.37s (2.9x)\\n\\nassign_solver defaults to greedy so ordinary runs pay nothing, and mutate_reassign/enable_reassign are opt-in too. But §39.5 concluded cpsat beats greedy on both programmes, and that was measured on a cheaper problem than the corpus now poses. The verdict needs re-checking on quality-per-second, not just quality.\\n\\nAlso worth checking whether cpsat.max_deterministic_time is now being hit, which would mean it is returning early rather than solving -- that would change the quality side of the comparison too, silently.","acceptance_criteria":"cpsat vs greedy re-measured on the current corpus for both solution quality AND wall time; §39.5's verdict either reconfirmed or restated; if max_deterministic_time is being hit, that is recorded and the limit reconsidered.","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"task","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-29T10:57:26Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-29T14:47:36Z","started_at":"2026-08-29T14:20:49Z","closed_at":"2026-08-29T14:47:36Z","close_reason":"Re-measured. Three findings (DESIGN.md §38.20).\n\n1. A LIVE BUG IN THE CAP, found on the way. solve_room_labels sets a\ndeterministic work-unit budget (max_deterministic_time=4.0) and a wall-clock\nbackstop, with the comment that the wall clock is \"a pathological-case backstop\nonly\". At its 2.0s value it had become THE BINDING CONSTRAINT: on harbor, 2 of\n24 solves returned FEASIBLE not OPTIMAL, wall time hit exactly 2010 ms, and the\ndeterministic budget was never reached (max 2.483 of 4.0). Those labellings were\nboth suboptimal AND load-dependent -- the wall clock is precisely the cap §39.5\nadded the deterministic one to escape. Cause: §38.14's `t -\u003e n` adjacency makes\nthe model much harder, and the 2s value dated from when solves took ~124 ms.\nRaised to 30s; now 24/24 harbor and 36/36 maple solves are OPTIMAL with the\ndeterministic budget still in headroom (max 3.569/4.0).\n\n2. THE VERDICT REVERSES. Re-measured deterministically (fdp's id()-ordering fix\nmeans the arms no longer differ by memory layout), 12 constructed seeds, scored\ncanonically:\n\n harbor greedy 722h/601s = 1323 0.079 s/seed\n harbor cpsat 908h/640s = 1548 1.623 s/seed\n maple greedy 777h/987s = 1764 0.063 s/seed\n maple cpsat 1213h/1043s= 2256 1.327 s/seed\n\ncpsat LOSES on both, +225 and +492 fails, at ~21x the seeding time, concentrated\nin hard fails.\n\n3. TIME AND QUALITY HAVE DIFFERENT CAUSES. Removing §38.14's `t -\u003e n` from\nharbor: cpsat goes 1.623 -\u003e 0.193 s/seed (8.4x faster) but still +205 vs greedy\n(was +225). So the adjacency explains the time blow-up and ~9% of the quality\ngap; the regression is otherwise pre-existing.\n\nSquaring with §39.5: that section records cpsat returning 194/180/171/182 over\nfour identical 10-seed aggregates before the determinism work. Its 10-fail\nharbor margin (102 vs 92) sits well inside a noise band that wide, and was\nmeasured with fdp's id()-ordered room_slots still live. So the seeder-level\n\"cpsat wins\" claim was never established rather than being overturned. §39.5\nannotated in place.\n\nCaveat stated in the write-up: absolute totals are ~6x §39.5's because the\nobjective has changed (§39.4, §38.10-12), so they are not directly comparable to\nthat table. The greedy-vs-cpsat comparison within this measurement is\nlike-for-like and is what the verdict rests on.\n\nNo default changes -- assign_solver was already greedy for §37.7's independent\nreason, and this reinforces it. What changes is that \"cpsat wins the seeder A/B\"\nshould no longer be cited as a reason to pursue it.\n\nCost recorded and filed as homemaker-py-2xk: the cap fix takes the test suite\nfrom ~4.5 to ~10 min, and the tests cannot opt out because constructive_topology\ndoes not thread the solver limits through.\n","comments":[{"id":"01a04dfd-ca76-7a21-b18d-d2af9ccd9ef4","issue_id":"homemaker-py-vjd","author":"Claude","text":"Correction: the close note above cites the follow-up as homemaker-py-2xk. That\nID does not exist -- I wrote it before creating the issue. The real one is\nhomemaker-py-7t1 (\"cpsat solver limits are not threadable from\nconstructive_topology, so tests pay full solve cost\"). DESIGN.md §38.20 has been\ncorrected to match.","created_at":"2026-08-29T14:47:53Z"}],"dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":1} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-9gj","title":"quality_uncrinkliness returns a flat hard 0.0, so the objective cannot rank two equally-buried layouts","description":"Narrowed remnant of homemaker-py-ssz after the owner's daylight ruling (DESIGN.md §38.11). A buried leaf usually IS a defect -- corridors and WCs included -- so scoring it badly is correct. The residual complaint is not that the value is low, it is that it is FLAT: quality_uncrinkliness returns exactly 0.0 for every zero-exposure leaf, and since evaluate_leaf multiplies factors into quality and process_storey accumulates value += quality * rate * area, two layouts that differ only in how badly buried their rooms are score identically.\n\nSo the objective gives the search no gradient to descend in precisely the region it most needs to escape. This is a search-mechanics problem, not a calibration one, and it should be judged on whether it helps the search escape -- NOT on fail counts, which by construction it will not move (the fails are real and should stay).\n\nNote the trap recorded in §38.9: an arm optimised under a modified objective must not be scored under the objective it modifies, and equally must not be scored under its own. For a pure gradient change that emits the same fail set, stock scoring IS valid -- that is the one case where the yardstick is sound.","acceptance_criteria":"A variant that keeps the fail set byte-identical to stock (every currently-failing leaf still fails) but is monotone in how buried a leaf is; A/B at fixed budget on harbor + maple with enough seeds to see past the one-seed variance that made the §38.8 n=3 result undecidable.","status":"open","priority":2,"issue_type":"bug","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-28T23:14:04Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-28T23:14:04Z","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-7b7","title":"health-centre demands 131% of its plot: the programme is unsatisfiable as written","description":"`evolve._preflight` (homemaker-py-tdp, DESIGN.md 39.11) reports health-centre demanding 240 m2 of floor per storey on a 183 m2 plot -- 131%. It is 1 storey (n_storeys_required=1, storey_minimum=1), so there is nowhere for the overflow to go.\n\nThe consequence is visible in every evaluated layout: 100% of rooms come out undersized, uniformly, at a median 0.60x their declared target. No search can fix this -- quality_size is being asked for something the plot cannot supply, so the size gaussian is pinned near-zero across the whole design and contributes no useful gradient. Contrast harbor-house and maple-court, where the seeder hits targets at median 1.01x.\n\nThis is a corpus data problem, not an engine problem. Either the plot is too small or the programme's sizes/counts were estimated too generously (the CLAUDE.md note that all corpus targets were 'estimated many years ago and never changed' applies).\n\nOptions, roughly in order of honesty:\n 1. enlarge the plot in examples/health-centre/init.dom to ~1.4x\n 2. scale down size/count in patterns.config until demand fits with headroom\n 3. raise the storey count so the demand spreads over 2 levels\n 4. leave it and treat health-centre as a deliberate over-tight brief, documented as such\n\nWhichever is chosen, note it in DESIGN.md 39.11 so the pre-flight warning is not read as a bug in the check.","acceptance_criteria":"health-centre's demanded area per storey fits its plot with headroom, OR the programme is explicitly documented as a deliberately over-tight brief; `evolve._preflight` no longer reports it as an unexplained anomaly; median room area / (target * share) on a constructed seed is materially above 0.60x.","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"bug","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-26T16:20:31Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-29T10:20:00Z","closed_at":"2026-08-29T10:20:00Z","close_reason":"Fixed per the owner's ruling: enlarge the plot, sized assuming a courtyard\n(DESIGN.md §38.13).\n\nThe plot is a quadrilateral in this engine, so the courtyard is interior space\nthe search carves out, not a hole in the site. Sizing therefore has to allow for\nthree things, only one of which the programme declares: rooms 240 m2, circulation\n~65 m2 (~27%, NOT in demand -- the search creates C leaves), courtyard ~36 m2.\n\nScaled about the polygon centroid by k = 1.4606, chosen so the INSET area (what\nleaves actually get, after wall_outer) lands on 400 m2. Centroid scaling keeps\nthe site's irregular shape and its one private edge -- same site, larger.\n\n plot 183.2 -\u003e 400.0 m2\n rooms / plot 131% -\u003e 60% (harbor's ratio exactly, and harbor works)\n daylit perim 41.5 -\u003e 61.3 m (49.4 needed)\n median room area / (target x share) 0.60x -\u003e 1.00x\n\nThat last figure is the one that matters: 0.60x with 100% of rooms undersized\nwas the geometric signature of the infeasibility, and it is now level with\nharbor/maple at 1.01x.\n\nThe courtyard remains REQUIRED by the geometry rather than merely permitted: a\nroom is at most 1.6202*h = 4.86 m deep before failing crinkliness, so a ~20x20 m\nplot with a daylit ring leaves a 10.3 x 10.3 m, 106 m2 core that cannot reach an\nexternal wall. Enlarging did not remove the pressure that produces a courtyard,\nit made room for one.\n\nevolve._preflight is now silent on health-centre. Unblocks homemaker-py-7xb.\n","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":1,"comment_count":0} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-3qj","title":"Programmes do not declare bedroom/treatment-room to toilet adjacency, so the Brand adaptability credit is never earned","description":"Established while settling homemaker-py-sel. A toilet adjacent to a sleeping or treatment room is a positive even with no door between them -- Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn: the building may need it knocked through later, and the adjacency is what makes that possible.\\n\\nThe engine already supports this. fitness._evaluate_full runs graph.check_adjacency against graph_base_pre, the UNFILTERED adjacency graph, so a declared adjacency requirement is satisfied by a neighbouring room regardless of the edges graph.has_circulation later strips for routing. (The stripping is correct on its own terms -- you cannot walk through a bedroom to reach the loo.)\\n\\nBut it is only ever scored where a programme DECLARES it, and only one corpus programme does:\\n programme-house (+ derivatives) t1 -\u003e adjacency: [b1] DECLARED\\n harbor-house t (Bathroom, count 6) vs r / n (sleeping) not declared\\n maple-court t, tt vs r / n not declared\\n health-centre t9 / t10 vs tr1 (Treatment Room) not declared\\n\\nSo three of the four real programmes leave the adaptability credit on the table: the search has no reason to place a WC next to a dormitory or a treatment room, because nothing scores it.\\n\\nThis is programme authoring, not an engine change, and it is independent of the usage-key work -- it can land before or after.","acceptance_criteria":"harbor-house, maple-court and health-centre declare the sleeping/treatment-to-toilet adjacencies their briefs imply; re-baselined so the change in fail counts is attributed rather than absorbed.","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"task","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-26T12:33:39Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-29T10:57:25Z","closed_at":"2026-08-29T10:57:25Z","close_reason":"Declared where the brief supports it (DESIGN.md §38.14).\n\n harbor-house t -\u003e n Bathrooms serve the Neighborhoods (communal sleeping).\n Both unpinned, 6 t / 5 n.\n maple-court tt -\u003e r Upper Bathrooms among Individual Rooms, both level 2,\n already 62% adjacent at seed time.\n\nNOT declared, and checking before declaring is what caught these:\n\n maple t -\u003e n is IMPOSSIBLE. Adjacency is evaluated per level (graph_base[li]),\n and maple pins t to level 0, n to level 1. Declaring it would have added six\n permanently unsatisfiable fails. The 0% seed-time rate I measured was a hard\n impossibility, not search difficulty. maple's ground floor has six bathrooms\n and exactly one sleeping room (Clinic Room x1) -- a ground-floor WC in a\n communal building is public, so Brand does not apply to it anyway.\n\n health-centre has no dedicated WC. The owner's ruling on treatment rooms was\n that one \"may give access to a toilet, but this would be a DEDICATED toilet\".\n t9 is a Public WC (x2), t10 a Staff WC; making either dedicated-adjacent to\n tr1 contradicts that. Earning the credit here needs a dedicated WC added to\n the brief -- programme authoring beyond this issue. Filed separately.\n\nBoth declarations are reachable (best of 8 seeds: 2/3 harbor, 2/2 maple), so the\nsearch gets a gradient not a permanent penalty. evolved-3M-nols-3: 84 -\u003e 89\nfails, all five the new requirement.\n\nCost: cpsat assignment got ~7.5x slower on harbor (0.28 -\u003e 2.11s per seed);\ngreedy, the default, is unchanged at 0.06s. Filed as a follow-up since it bears\non §39.5's cpsat-vs-greedy verdict.\n\nTwo tests were over-fitted to the old seeds and were repaired to assert their\nintent rather than relaxed: reassign now sweeps six constructive seeds (seed 0's\nbetter-seeded design legitimately has nothing to improve; 5 of 6 others fire),\nand repair_circulation asserts that repair strictly helps plus a \u003e=85% bar\ninstead of a sampled 100% (measured 25% -\u003e 92%, stable over 6 and 12 seeds).\n","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} diff --git a/DESIGN.md b/DESIGN.md index d276ea9..c963978 100644 --- a/DESIGN.md +++ b/DESIGN.md @@ -5952,7 +5952,7 @@ the `assign_cpsat` tests dominate it. That is correctness bought with wall time, and it is the right trade for a default, but the tests should not be paying it — they cannot currently pass a smaller `deterministic_limit` because `constructive_topology` does not thread the solver's limits through -(`homemaker-py-2xk`). +(`homemaker-py-7t1`). **No default changes.** `assign_solver` was already default `greedy` for the independent reason §37.7 gives, and this reinforces it. What changes is that the