diff --git a/.beads/issues.jsonl b/.beads/issues.jsonl index eec44db..afa332d 100644 --- a/.beads/issues.jsonl +++ b/.beads/issues.jsonl @@ -36,10 +36,12 @@ {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-1p0","title":"Geometry inner loop: full-objective equal-offset ratio optimiser","description":"DESIGN.md §5.1, §7 Phase 1. Productionise experiments/optimize_fullfitness.py into homemaker: optimise(topology, x0=None) -\u003e (geometry, fitness). DOF = equal-offset division ratios of free branches (solver.free_branches, lowest-storey cut ownership), clipped to [eps, 1-eps]. Objective = full oracle fitness (never a proxy — §4.2 falsified). Must support warm-start x0 (§5.6) and a population/batch evaluation mode so each iteration scores via one batched oracle call (§4.6).","acceptance_criteria":"Reproduces or exceeds §4.5 gains (x1.24–x1.67, no new failures) on 2f45907, candidate-002, c964435; works as a library call on any corpus .dom","status":"closed","priority":1,"issue_type":"feature","assignee":"Bruno Postle","owner":"bruno@postle.net","created_at":"2026-06-11T23:36:58Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","updated_at":"2026-06-12T08:46:31Z","started_at":"2026-06-12T00:14:19Z","closed_at":"2026-06-12T08:46:31Z","close_reason":"innerloop.optimise() lands: batched CMA-ES sigma ladder (0.05/0.15, IPOP popsize doubling, deterministic seeding) over equal-offset free-branch ratios vs full oracle fitness; warm-start x0 supported. Acceptance vs unprojected originals: x1.65/x1.66/x1.58 against bars x1.24/x1.67/x1.59, no new failures, 46 oracle calls vs NM's 200. Two near-bar results accepted as reproduced-within-noise (1% tol) — draw spread brackets the single-NM-draw bars; approved by Bruno 2026-06-12. Gotchas: equal-offset projection of legacy unequal cuts loses fitness/adds failures (midpoint projection used); pycma seed=0 means clock-seeded.","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-1p0","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-av5","type":"blocks","created_at":"2026-06-12T00:39:33Z","created_by":"Bruno Postle","metadata":"{}"}],"dependency_count":1,"dependent_count":3,"comment_count":0} {"_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-u5q","title":"Calibrate the crinkliness decay: an ordinary 4 m deep room scores 0.395, and sigma=1.1/3 was never justified","description":"DESIGN.md 39.14 made the crinkliness factor one-sided, which removed the\ndouble-charge against cost and the absurd 2.5 m optimum. It deliberately left\nthe other half alone: how steeply quality should decay from the saturation\npoint to the daylight limit.\n\nAt the global uncrinkliness params [5/6, 1.1/3] and the corpus's h = 3 m:\n\n depth 2.5 m q = 1.000 (saturation, now clipped)\n depth 3.0 m q = 0.902\n depth 4.0 m q = 0.395\n depth 4.5 m q = 0.191\n depth 4.86 m q = 0.100 (FAIL_THRESHOLD)\n depth 5.0 m q = 0.076 FAILS\n\nA 4 m deep room is entirely ordinary and it loses 60% of its value. After the\none-sided change, crinkliness is still the harshest of the seven quality\nfactors (area-weighted mean 0.513 vs size 0.536, proportion 0.853, width\n0.928, access 0.962, perpendicular 0.982), and essentially all of what is\nleft comes from this decay.\n\nThe two constants are inherited from Urb without a recorded derivation. The\ntarget 5/6 is now only the saturation point, so what actually needs\njustifying is sigma = 1.1/3, which sets how fast a room loses value as it\napproaches a limit it has not yet breached.\n\nNote the limit itself (1.62 h = 4.86 m) is NOT in question: 39.14 records two\nindependent derivations agreeing on it, the gaussian's own crossing and\n38.3's frontage bound.\n\nOptions worth measuring, all default OFF and all preserving the fail\nboundary:\n\n* widen sigma so the decay is gentler and only bites near the limit;\n* replace the gaussian's approach with a shape that is flat until some\n fraction of the limit and then falls -- i.e. move the saturation point out\n from 2.5 m rather than change the curvature;\n* derive sigma from the daylight rule itself rather than picking it, if a\n defensible derivation exists.\n\nJudge on a search A/B (experiments/ab_9gj_crinkliness.py takes named arms),\nscored under stock, with the fail set asserted byte-identical first.\n\nBlocked on 9gj landing.\n","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"bug","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-09-05T07:28:07Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-09-05T15:11:19Z","started_at":"2026-09-05T07:38:43Z","closed_at":"2026-09-05T15:11:19Z","close_reason":"Closed","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-u5q","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-9gj","type":"blocks","created_at":"2026-09-05T07:28:14Z","created_by":"Claude","metadata":"{}"}],"comments":[{"id":"01a0721a-a650-7456-adce-8b3955707592","issue_id":"homemaker-py-u5q","author":"Claude","text":"Done -- DESIGN.md 39.15. The answer is not a new sigma.\n\nFirst, the reframing that made it answerable: a fail is quality \u003c\nFAIL_THRESHOLD and every factor is a gaussian, so (target, sigma) does not\nexpress a soft preference -- it DEFINES an acceptance interval, target +-\n2.1460*sigma. Sigma is the tolerance that decides failures.\n\nThe blanket hypothesis does not survive. programme-house reaches 1 fail on all\nthree 500k seeds, and on two of them that fail is structural (staircase\nvolume, level 1 not connected), not a quality factor. Where a programme is\ninternally consistent the objective is very nearly satisfiable.\n\nThe specific one does, and it shows 39.1's CLEAN verdict was answering a\nweaker question. audit_programme_config.py swept each spec's whole tolerance\nbox and asked \"is SOME shape feasible\" -- all 67 corpus specs pass. But a\ntolerance is not a design intent. At the DECLARED target area and target\naspect:\n\n harbor-house 7 instances need \u003e=2 exposed sides (cr1, da1, 5 x n)\n maple-court 6 instances (da1, lr1, 4 x n)\n health-centre 0\n programme-house 0\n\nharbor's common room is 80 m2 at aspect 2.0 = 6.32 x 12.65 m, and 6.32 m is\ndeeper than the 4.86 m single-aspect daylight limit. It is feasible only at\nthe bottom of its area tolerance and the top of its aspect one (4.5 x 13.4 m\nat 60 m2) -- satisfiable only by building something other than what was asked\nfor.\n\nThose codes carry the failures. Within-programme (which controls for\nprogramme size, as a cross-programme comparison would not): harbor 13/21\ninstances fail = 62% vs 29/113 = 26% for all other codes; maple 14/18 = 78% vs\n53/172 = 31%.\n\nOf the 112 corpus crinkliness fails: 77 (69%) buried at crink == 0 -\u003e k54;\n17 (15%) too deep with a contradictory-as-declared spec; 18 (16%) other.\n\nSo three declared quantities -- target area, target aspect, daylight limit --\nare jointly contradictory for six specs and nothing said so. The daylight\nlimit is the one with independent support (the gaussian's crossing and 38.3's\nfrontage bound agree at 1.62h by separate routes). The area and aspect targets\nare the author's brief, so the resolution is an author decision -- shrink the\nroom, allow a deeper aspect, or declare it wants a corner -- not a constant\nretuned until the number drops.\n\nShipped: the \"at declared target\" column in audit_programme_config.py, the\ntool CLAUDE.md already sends programme authors to, plus the corner-demand\ncount. Objective unchanged.\n\nRecorded not fixed: 36 of 44 size fails (82%) are rooms LARGER than target,\nwhile cost already charges floor area at 200/m2. Same shape as 39.14's\ndouble-charge but NOT the same case -- crinkliness's surplus side never fires\nas a fail, whereas size's upper bound is the main brake on growth (with\nvalue/cost and scores ~1e-11, growth always pays unless quality falls).\nRemoving it on the analogy would license inflating every room. If it is the\nwrong instrument the value rate is what wants re-examining.","created_at":"2026-09-05T15:05:44Z"}],"dependency_count":1,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":1} +{"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-k54","title":"Grade fully-buried leaves by burial depth: 69% of the crinkliness residual is at crink==0, where no rescaling of the factor can order anything","description":"DESIGN.md 39.13 (homemaker-py-9gj) rescaled the FAILING compact tail of\nquality_uncrinkliness so it stops underflowing. That reaches the 35 corpus\nleaves with partial exposure. It cannot reach the other 77 -- 69% of the\nfailing region -- because they sit at crink == 0 exactly, and 0 times any\nrescaling is still 0.\n\nMeasured over the twelve 500k cold-start runs (39.12): 430 leaves carry a\nminimum-exposure requirement, 112 fail it, 77 of those have zero exposed wall.\nThose 77 are 1612 m2 of floor, and the objective assigns every one of them the\nsame number.\n\n39.13 also establishes that this is NOT beyond the inner loop's reach, which\ncorrects the premise in homemaker-py-gvb: perturbing division ratios alone\nmoves the zero-exposure set on 6-12 of 12 baseline artefacts at +-25%, and on\n0-7 at +-10%. A leaf can slide far enough to meet an outside neighbour or the\nplot edge. So there is a real valley here and the ratio DOF can cross it.\n\nWhat is missing is an ordering over the far side of it. Candidate: grade a\nzero-exposure leaf by its burial DEPTH -- adjacency-graph distance to the\nnearest leaf that does have exposure, or to outside. Depth 1 is one ratio move\nfrom daylight; depth 3 is not.\n\nConstraints any such term must meet, inherited from 39.13:\n\n* It must stay strictly below FAIL_THRESHOLD, so the fail set stays\n byte-identical and stock scoring remains a valid yardstick (the 38.9 trap's\n one exemption).\n* It must be continuous with the ramp at crink == 0, or the two together\n reintroduce a step.\n* It is a NEW objective term, not a repair to an existing one, so it carries a\n calibration burden 9gj's rescale did not: it changes what \"good\" means, and\n a wrong weight will make burial cheap. Default OFF, A/B'd on its own.\n\nBlocked on 9gj landing (and ideally on its A/B verdict -- if the ramp shows no\nsearch effect on the 35 reachable leaves, a term for the other 77 is unlikely\nto pay either, and that is useful evidence about the whole crinkliness story).\n","status":"open","priority":2,"issue_type":"bug","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-09-05T06:19:11Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-09-05T06:19:11Z","dependencies":[{"issue_id":"homemaker-py-k54","depends_on_id":"homemaker-py-9gj","type":"blocks","created_at":"2026-09-05T06:19:18Z","created_by":"Claude","metadata":"{}"}],"dependency_count":1,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-tco","title":"A/B harnesses should report the minimum detectable difference for the N they run","description":"Two independent findings this session say the project's A/B protocols are\nroutinely underpowered for the margins they report:\n\n §38.19 programme-house needed N=60 to resolve an effect its own protocol\n claimed at N=20 (p ~= 0.069 at N=20, 0.017 at N=60)\n §38.21 harbor's paired sd is 6.19 fails, so n=3 resolves nothing finer than\n ~15.4 fails -- yet every recorded harbor margin is below that, and 25%\n of 3-seed subsets show a clean 3/3 sweep by chance\n\nThe fix is procedural and cheap. The A/B harnesses (run_*_ab.sh, ab_*.py,\nrerun_1ph_protocol.sh) should print, alongside the result, the minimum\ndifference their N and observed sd could have detected -- so an underpowered\nverdict is visible AT THE POINT IT IS MADE rather than years later.\n\nA one-line addition to each harness's summary: from the paired diffs it already\ncomputes, report\n\n minimum detectable difference = t_crit(0.975, N-1) * sd / sqrt(N)\n\nand flag when the observed margin falls below it. Optionally refuse to declare a\nwinner in that case.\n\nThis is not about re-running old A/Bs (§38.21 covers harbor, §38.19\nprogramme-house); it is about not generating more of them.\n","acceptance_criteria":"The shared A/B summary path reports the minimum detectable difference for the N actually run, and flags a verdict whose margin falls below it; applied to at least rerun_1ph_protocol.sh and ab_ssz_search.py.","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"task","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-29T19:34:30Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-29T19:51:47Z","started_at":"2026-08-29T19:38:30Z","closed_at":"2026-08-29T19:51:47Z","close_reason":"Shipped experiments/ab_report.py (DESIGN.md §38.22).\n\n minimum detectable difference (MDD) = t_crit(0.975, N-1) * sd / sqrt(N)\n\nA margin below the MDD is not a weak result, it is an ABSENT one -- the\nexperiment could not have distinguished it from zero however it came out. The\nreport flags that, refuses to endorse a winner, and states the N that would be\nneeded. Also reports exact paired t, a Wilcoxon cross-check (fail counts are\nsmall integers, normality is not obvious), CI, and W/L/T.\n\nValidated against both datasets measured this session -- it reproduces the\nhand-computed figures exactly and flags correctly:\n\n programme-house N=60 +0.567 p=0.017 MDD 0.462 -\u003e verdict supported\n programme-house N=20 +0.700 p=0.085 MDD 0.805 -\u003e UNDERPOWERED, N~=26\n harbor N=24 +1.208 p=0.502 MDD 3.669 -\u003e UNDERPOWERED, N~=202\n\nHarbor needing ~200 seeds means it cannot answer the collapse_insearch question\nat any N this project would realistically run.\n\nCaught and fixed a defect in my own first version: with all-ties (sd=0) the MDD\ncollapses to zero, and the naive `abs(mean) \u003c mdd` reported \"margin exceeds the\nMDD -- verdict supported\" for a margin of 0.000, with t=nan. A reporter that\nendorses a zero margin is worse than none. Degenerate cases are now explicit and\ndistinguish all-ties from a constant non-zero difference.\n\nWired into ab_ssz_search.py; rerun_1ph_protocol.sh's TSV is readable directly by\nthe CLI.\n\nSEPARATE CORRECTION made while validating: §38.19's published p-values for N=20\nand N=40 were 0.069 and 0.045, from a normal approximation I used. The exact\npaired t-test gives 0.085 and 0.052 -- so N=40 did NOT reach significance either,\nand it took N=60. The approximation was anti-conservative, making results look\nmore significant than they are, which is the same direction of error this whole\nthread is about. Corrected at all four sites citing it, and §38.19's \"needs\nN \u003e= 40\" guidance raised to N \u003e= 60.\n","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"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","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-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":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"bug","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-28T23:14:04Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-09-05T15:11:18Z","started_at":"2026-09-05T06:19:19Z","closed_at":"2026-09-05T15:11:18Z","close_reason":"Closed","comments":[{"id":"01a0721a-5da5-7bcc-b82b-decb9612947c","issue_id":"homemaker-py-9gj","author":"Claude","text":"Two changes shipped, both default OFF, both with the fail set asserted\nbyte-identical on all 21 corpus artefacts (tests/test_fitness_crinkliness.py).\n\n1. crinkliness_tail=\"ramp\" (DESIGN.md 39.13). The factor evaluates a gaussian\n at 1/crink, whose exponent grows like 1/crink^2, so the failing tail spans\n quality 1e-300..1e-1 -- all numerically zero beside a passing leaf's ~1.\n Measured a COMPLETE NULL as a search intervention: 12 of 12 pairs\n byte-identical, both programmes, same trajectories. The tail is 0.034% of\n corpus value; making 0.034% orderable cannot move a search. Kept because it\n is free and k54 needs the region orderable, but it is not a fix.\n\n2. crinkliness_shape=\"daylight\" (39.14), after the owner said to reexamine the\n formulation rather than patch its tail. 1/crink is the room's depth from\n its daylit wall in storey-heights -- a sound variable, and its fail\n boundary (1.62h = 4.86 m) agrees with 38.3's independently-derived frontage\n bound. What is wrong is the TWO-sided gaussian on it:\n - the near side penalises surplus daylight while edge_cost and\n outside_edge_cost already charge that wall at 100 and 133.3 per m2;\n - that side has never once produced a fail (it needs crink \u003e 21.5; the\n corpus maximum is 3.95) -- pure value subtraction, no enforcement;\n - the peak sits at a 2.5 m deep room, so an ordinary 4 m room scores\n 0.395, and the corpus's realised median depth is 2.95 m: the search\n built what it was paid for.\n Clipping the surplus side at the PEAK (not at FAIL_THRESHOLD) keeps the\n factor continuous and preserves the graded approach to the limit.\n Area-weighted crinkliness quality 0.480 -\u003e 0.513, leaf quality product\n 0.2722 -\u003e 0.2831, per-artefact score +0.2%..+19.6%.\n\nA/B at pilot budget (8000 evals, 3 plateau starts x 2 seeds, stock-scored):\nharbor 39.17 -\u003e 39.00, 1W/0L/5T, margin 0.167 below the N=6 MDD of 0.428\n(UNDERPOWERED); maple all ties. Unlike the ramp the arms DO reach different\nlayouts -- they land on the same fail count. Justified but unproven; stays\ndefault OFF. Powered protocol (--budget 100000 --seeds 3 --starts 3) is in the\nharness docstring and wants the local machine.\n\nFollow-ups filed: k54 (the 69% of the failing region at crink == 0, which no\nrescaling can order) and u5q (the sigma calibration, done -- see 39.15).","created_at":"2026-09-05T15:05:26Z"}],"dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":2,"comment_count":1} {"_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} {"_type":"issue","id":"homemaker-py-fdp","title":"constructive_topology is not bit-reproducible on the assign_solver=cpsat path","description":"Established while fixing §39.5. Narrowed but not closed:\\n\\n- cpsat.solve_room_labels IS now reproducible on every captured instance, after two fixes: sorting the model-build order (neighbors[slot] is a set of dom.Node, which hashes by id() -- a memory address -- so raw iteration made the model order vary and CP-SAT returned a different equally-optimal assignment each run), and adding max_deterministic_time alongside the wall-clock cap.\\n- operators.constructive_topology(assign_solver='greedy') IS reproducible.\\n- operators.constructive_topology(assign_solver='cpsat') is NOT: identical seed in the same process gives different leaf-type signatures across runs.\\n\\nSo something upstream of the solver in _assign_adjacency_aware still varies on the cpsat branch. Disabling _cpsat_relabel_settled does not fix it, so it is the first call site. Suspect another id()-hashed set of Nodes feeding slot/neighbour ordering.\\n\\nPlausible contributor to homemaker-py-b8g (parallel/BLAS non-determinism in n_workers\u003e1 runs) -- same id-keying hazard class as the documented geometry._cache issue. Meanwhile tests/test_operators.py::test_assign_cpsat_matches_or_beats_greedy_secondary_adjacency averages three repeats instead of asserting on one run.","acceptance_criteria":"constructive_topology(assign_solver='cpsat') produces identical output for identical seeds in-process and across processes; the A/B test can go back to a single-run assertion.","status":"closed","priority":2,"issue_type":"bug","assignee":"Claude","owner":"noreply@anthropic.com","created_at":"2026-08-26T10:06:55Z","created_by":"Claude","updated_at":"2026-08-29T11:45:19Z","started_at":"2026-08-29T11:35:49Z","closed_at":"2026-08-29T11:45:19Z","close_reason":"Fixed. One line (DESIGN.md §38.15):\n\n assignable = scope if scope is not None else set(leaves)\n noncirc = [L for L in assignable if L not in circ] # \u003c-- id() order\n\nassignable is a set of dom.Node, which hashes by id() -- a memory address -- so\niterating it ordered noncirc, and hence room_slots, by where the objects landed\nin memory. That varies between calls within one process, no seed involved.\n\nOnly cpsat showed it because the greedy path re-sorts every slot list with\n-idx[L] as a unique tiebreak and is immune to the incoming order; CP-SAT\nconsumes room_slots order as its model's variable order, and the labelling\nproblem has many equally-optimal solutions. Greedy was not more correct, it was\nmasking a defect that had been there all along.\n\nFix: noncirc = [L for L in leaves if L in assignable and L not in circ] --\niterate the tree-ordered list, use the set only for membership.\n\nVerified on programme-house, harbor-house and maple-court: 1 distinct signature\nover 5 runs on BOTH solvers, and 1 distinct signature across 4 processes with\ndifferent PYTHONHASHSEED (so context_types' string sets are not a second\nsource). That is stronger than the acceptance criteria asked for.\n\nMethod worth reusing: rather than guessing which set was at fault, I\ninstrumented solve_room_labels with an id-free fingerprint of inputs and\noutputs and isolated the FIRST call (later calls legitimately depend on earlier\nones via leaf types). Five runs, five distinct first-call inputs -\u003e fault is\nupstream of the solver, located in one step.\n\ntest_constructive_topology_is_bit_reproducible guards both solvers.\n\nBearing on other issues: every A/B on the cpsat path was comparing arms that\ndiffered partly by memory layout, §39.5's cpsat-vs-greedy verdict included\n(already down for re-measurement under homemaker-py-vjd). Same id()-keying\nhazard class as the geometry._cache issue and a plausible contributor to\nhomemaker-py-b8g, which stays open -- n_workers\u003e1 has its own BLAS mechanism and\nis not addressed here.\n","dependency_count":0,"dependent_count":0,"comment_count":0}