The owner supplied the provenance the analysis was missing. The constant is
Christopher Alexander, A Pattern Language 159, "Light on Two Sides of Every
Room", and it changes what the numbers mean.
1/crink = A/(L*h) is floor area per metre of ILLUMINATED wall over storey
height. It is not room depth -- it equals depth only for a room lit on one
side. So 5/6 * h = 2.5 m is 2.5 m of room depth PER WINDOW WALL: one side
allows 2.5 m at the peak and 4.86 m at the fail edge, two opposite sides allow
5.00 m and 9.72 m. A 4 m room scores 0.395 lit on one side and 0.902 lit on
two. The factor is the pattern stated as a ratio, and it is not
miscalibrated.
WITHDRAWN from 39.14: the "2.5 m absurd optimum" reading, and "the corpus's
realised median depth is 2.95 m, so the search built what it was paid for" --
2.95 was the median A/L, while the corpus's single-aspect leaves are a median
3.46 m deep and its two-opposite leaves 4.42 m. Ordinary rooms. Section
retitled, passage struck in place.
WITHDRAWN from 39.15: calling six specs "self-contradictory". They are large
rooms, and under Alexander a large room is supposed to need two aspects; the
audit's new column reports the pattern working, not a mis-specification. What
is real is the tension between that demand and what the plan form supplies.
SURVIVES, on a better argument: crinkliness_shape="daylight". 159 states a
MINIMUM, and a two-sided gaussian turns a minimum into a target -- 68% of the
133 leaves in the clipped region are lit on two or more sides, mean quality
0.770, docked for satisfying the pattern well, on top of the
exterior_wall/boundary_wall charge those windows already carry in cost.
New 39.16 records this and relocates the residual. Over the 430 graded
baseline leaves: unlit 77 (100% fail), one side 208 (15%), two-corner 87 (2%),
two-opposite 34 (0%), three/four 24 (4%). Light on two sides all but
guarantees a pass and only 33.7% of leaves get it, so the open question is why
a binary slicing tree on a convex plot can only give a third of its leaves two
aspects -- a plan-form question, not a scoring one. Filed as
homemaker-py-773; 39.11's courtyard finding is the same question from the
other side.
Both errors came from reading a dimensionless ratio as a length, so the
provenance and the interpretation now sit next to the constant in fitness.py,
not only in DESIGN.md.
405 passed, 72 skipped.
Refs homemaker-py-u5q.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
39.13 -- the tail rescale, and its verdict. NULL, and not for want of power:
12 of 12 pairs byte-identical, both programmes, same trajectories. The failing
tail is 0.034% of corpus value, so making it orderable cannot move a search.
Kept (free, and k54 needs the region orderable) but recorded as correct and
inert, not as a fix. It also corrects gvb's premise: zero exposure is NOT
beyond the inner loop's reach -- perturbing division ratios alone moves the
zero-exposure set on 6-12 of 12 trials at +-25%, and in the direction wanted
(harbor s1 8 -> 6 buried leaves).
39.14 -- what the factor actually rewards. 1/crink is the room's depth from
its daylit wall in storey-heights, so the variable is sound and its fail
boundary (1.62h = 4.86 m) agrees with 38.3's independently-derived frontage
bound. The two-sided gaussian on it is not: the near side penalises surplus
daylight that edge_cost and outside_edge_cost already bill at 100 and 133.3
per m2, it has never once produced a fail (it needs crink > 21.5; corpus max
is 3.95), and its peak sits at a 2.5 m deep room -- an ordinary 4 m room
scores 0.395 and the corpus's realised median depth is 2.95 m. The search
built what it was paid for. A/B at pilot budget is underpowered rather than
null: the arms reach different layouts but the same fail counts.
39.15 -- the magic numbers. A sigma is not a preference, it is an acceptance
interval target +- 2.1460*sigma, so it decides failures. The blanket
hypothesis does not survive -- programme-house reaches 1 fail, structural on
two of three seeds. The specific one does, and it shows 39.1's CLEAN verdict
answered a weaker question: sweeping a spec's tolerance box asks whether SOME
shape is feasible, and all 67 pass, but at the DECLARED target area and aspect
harbor needs 7 corner rooms and maple 6, while health-centre and
programme-house need none. Within-programme, those codes fail 62% and 78% of
their instances against 26% and 31% for all others. Three declared quantities
are jointly contradictory and nothing said so; the resolution is an author
decision, not a retuned constant.
Also recorded: 82% of size fails are rooms larger than target, which is the
same shape of double-charge but explicitly NOT the same case -- size's upper
bound is the main brake on growth and must not be removed on the analogy.
405 passed, 72 skipped.
Closes homemaker-py-9gj, homemaker-py-u5q.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
A fail is `quality < FAIL_THRESHOLD`, and every factor is a gaussian, so a
(target, sigma) pair does not express a soft preference -- it DEFINES an
acceptance interval, target +- 2.1460*sigma. Sigma is the tolerance that
decides failures, and these sigmas were inherited from Urb without a recorded
derivation.
audit_programme_config.py already swept each spec's whole tolerance box and
asked "is SOME shape in here feasible?". Every corpus spec passes that, which
is what 39.1 recorded as CLEAN. But a tolerance is not a design intent: the
author declared a target area and a target aspect, and that is the room they
asked for. Asking whether THAT room is feasible is a different question.
Six specs answer it differently -- harbor's cr1/da1/n and maple's da1/lr1/n.
Built as declared they need two exposed sides, a corner: harbor's common room
is 80 m2 at aspect 2.0, so 6.32 x 12.65 m, and 6.32 m is deeper than the
4.86 m single-aspect daylight limit. They are "feasible" in the box only at
the bottom of their area tolerance and the top of their aspect one -- the
search can satisfy them only by building something other than what was asked
for.
New `at declared target` column, plus a count of instances needing >=2 sides
as declared: harbor 7, maple 6, health-centre 0, programme-house 0. The
corner budget is reported as an inequality against storey count rather than a
fixed number, since init.dom is one storey for every corpus programme and the
search grows the rest.
_multi_aspect() replaces the duplicated substring test, and _audit_at_target
reuses the live Gaussians rather than reimplementing them.
Refs homemaker-py-u5q.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
The tail rescale shipped in cd392e7 is a measured NULL as a search
intervention -- 12 of 12 pairs byte-identical on harbor and maple, 8000 evals
from a plateau, not merely underpowered. Of course it is: the whole failing
tail is 0.034% of corpus value. Looking at the rest of the factor, prompted by
the owner, found something much larger above the threshold.
crink = area_outside/area = (L*h)/A, so 1/crink = A/(L*h) is the room's mean
depth from its daylit wall in storey-heights. That is the right variable for a
daylight rule, and the fail boundary it implies (1/crink = 1.62, i.e. 4.86 m at
h=3) is a sensible one that agrees with 38.3's frontage bound derived
independently. What is wrong is hanging a TWO-sided gaussian on it:
* The near side penalises a room for having MORE daylit wall than target --
while leaf_cost's siblings edge_cost and outside_edge_cost already charge
that same wall at exterior_wall=100 and boundary_wall=133.3 per m2. The wall
is billed once in cost and again as lost value.
* It never earns its keep as a failure either: the over-exposed branch only
reaches FAIL_THRESHOLD above crinkliness 21.5, and the corpus maximum is
3.95. It has never produced a single fail; it only removes value.
* 133 of the 318 passing graded leaves in the 500k baseline (42%) sit on that
side, mean quality 0.810.
crinkliness_shape="daylight" (default OFF, "gaussian" is stock) clips it: a
room shallower than the gaussian's peak scores 1.0, because daylight is a
sufficiency requirement and surplus is the cost model's business, not this
factor's. Clipping at the PEAK rather than at FAIL_THRESHOLD is deliberate --
it keeps the factor continuous and preserves the graded approach to the
daylight limit, where clipping at the threshold would put a 10x cliff on the
exact boundary the 0.5**n fail multiplier already steps on.
Fail set byte-identical on all 21 corpus artefacts for all four
shape/tail combinations, so stock stays a valid yardstick for every arm.
Area-weighted crinkliness quality 0.480 -> 0.513, leaf quality product
0.2722 -> 0.2831; per-artefact score +0.2%..+19.6%, and unlike the ramp it
reaches health-centre and programme-house, where the tail change was 0.000%.
Note "daylight" clips the OPPOSITE side from 38.1's superseded compact_ok,
which forgives being buried; composing either with those modes is refused.
ab_9gj_ramp.py becomes ab_9gj_crinkliness.py and takes named arms, since it
now covers both changes; its first arm is the baseline and the yardstick.
Refs homemaker-py-9gj.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Only the merged <out>.csv is worth keeping; the shards are intermediate by
construction and one per worker process.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
quality_uncrinkliness evaluates a gaussian at x = 1/crink, so its exponent
grows like 1/crink^2 and underflows a double to exactly zero below crink ~
1/15. Measured over the twelve 500k cold-start runs (39.12): 430 leaves carry
a minimum-exposure requirement, 112 fail it, and those 112 span quality
1e-300..1e-1 while contributing 0.034% of total value on 23% of the floor
area. Every value in that range is numerically zero beside a passing leaf's
~1, so the search cannot rank two layouts that differ only in how exposed
their under-lit rooms are.
This is wider than the bead's diagnosis (a flat 0.0 for zero-exposure leaves)
and it explains why 38.1's `floor` mode measured as a no-op: max(q, 0.01) maps
110 of the 112 onto one constant, replacing a flat zero with a flat 0.01.
crinkliness_tail="ramp" (default OFF, "gaussian" is stock) replaces the tail --
only the tail, only below FAIL_THRESHOLD, only on the compact side -- with a
straight line in crinkliness meeting the gaussian exactly at the crossing.
_crink_at_fail_threshold inverts the gaussian there using the same truncated
_E the factor is evaluated with.
Deliberately conservative: nothing at or above FAIL_THRESHOLD moves, so no
calibration changes and no leaf crosses the threshold. The fail set is
byte-identical on all 21 committed corpus artefacts, the four init.dom seeds
included -- asserted in tests/test_fitness_crinkliness_tail.py, not assumed.
That invariance is also what makes it legal to score both arms of the A/B
under stock (the 38.9 trap's one exemption). A fully buried leaf still scores
exactly 0; this restores an ordering within the failing region, it does not
forgive it. Composing with 38.1's superseded modes is refused, since both
rewrite the same tail.
Score effect on the baseline artefacts: +0.3%..+2.8% on harbor and maple,
exactly +0.000% on health-centre, programme-house, and every init.dom -- a
programme with no partially-exposed failing rooms has nothing to grade, and
neither does any starting layout. The ramp is a mid-search signal by
construction, so experiments/ab_9gj_ramp.py defaults to seeding each run from
a 500k plateau artefact rather than cold.
The module-level math import replaces a now-redundant local one.
DESIGN.md 39.13 and the A/B verdict follow in a separate commit.
Refs homemaker-py-9gj.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
DESIGN.md 38.7 pinned Phase 9's acceptance test to "harbor-house reaches its
known 15-fail floor". That figure was measured before 39.4, against harbor's
*effective* programme of 32 instances -- cr1/of/st1/st2 were being read as
generic circulation and silently dropped. Against the real 37-instance
programme the same artefact scores 89, so the target is not measurable; and
2v1, the fix it was the acceptance test for, closed NULL (39.8), so there is
no combined fix left to accept.
New 39.12 records:
* the five evolved-3M*.dom artefacts rescored under the current objective
(69/85/87/89/145), and why they are not a floor -- they were evolved under
one objective and are scored under another;
* that the bead's migration premise is stale: experiments/migrate_ju3_rename.py
does not exist, because ju3 tightened the matching rule at source (39.3)
instead, so the old artefacts parse correctly with no migration;
* the 4x3-seed 500k cold-start baseline (~430 h) as the reference from here,
with each programme's sd and its minimum detectable difference at n=3 --
harbor mean 39.3, sd 5.5, MDD 13.7;
* zero missing-space fails in all twelve runs: the dominant term in the 3M
artefacts is not one the live search still fails on;
* crinkliness at 112 of the 321 corpus fails (35%), all soft, all in the
regime 9gj says quality_uncrinkliness returns a flat 0.0 for -- the largest
single component of the residual is one the objective cannot descend;
* 66 of the 84 hard fails as one access-topology family (not-adjacent-to,
inaccessible usable space, not connected), mechanism in 39.9.
38.7's acceptance paragraph is annotated in place rather than rewritten. The
connectivity clause is demoted to a separately tracked standing defect: it
appears in 10 of the 12 baseline runs.
tests/test_collapse_insearch.py carried its own stale "82 -> 58"; the same
layout now scores 89 -> 64, so the docstring dates the figure instead of
asserting a current one.
Closes homemaker-py-ut5.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
With tym landed the DP finally runs on real leaf-sharing searches, so v4s
asked for the search-level A/B. No A/B was run: two structural facts make
the payoff zero before any seed is drawn, and measuring a no-op would have
produced a null that reads like a measurement rather than a fact.
Reach. driver._evaluate gates the warm-start on `x0 is None`, and every
child gets x0 = innerloop.warm_x0(...) from its parent (driver.py:764), so
it fires only for bootstrap-population individuals. Instrumented over a
4000-eval run: 8 DP solves, exactly pop_size. At the corpus baseline's 500k
budget that is 8 evaluations out of 500,000.
Applicability. Constructed-seed feasibility over 6 seeds: harbor-house 0/6
with leaf_sharing on AND off, programme-house 0/6, harbor-house-l0 4-5/6
(75% over a real search). Even those 8 bootstrap individuals get no warm
start on the real programmes; only l0, the reduced programme the DP was
validated on, is feasible.
The infeasibility is correct, checked because it is the dangerous
direction: on 4 harbor topologies the DP rejects, an NM polish minimising
the shape-fail family reaches 14/16/17/16 fails, never 0 -- 0/4 false
negatives. Full harbor is genuinely shape-infeasible per topology where l0
is not. Per topology only: programme-house reaches 0 hard / 1 soft in the
500k baseline while its constructed seeds are DP-infeasible.
shapecurve_prune is separately inert -- it acts only inside the
feasibility_max_shape_fails branch and its exact arm needs best_n_fails<=0.
tym was still worth doing: the DP now models leaf-sharing exactly (38.23)
and fires on real runs, which is what turned an untestable question into a
structural answer.
Filed homemaker-py-ldj for what would have to change: give the DP reach
beyond the bootstrap, and/or use infeasibility as a ranking signal (an
infeasible topology still has a shape-fail floor, which is what a
pre-filter wants) rather than a precondition that discards it.
Closes homemaker-py-v4s.
Lint at parity (46).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
shapecurve.leaf_constraints derived each leaf's feasible area from its own
type's base (target, sigma). quality_size does not: a leaf holding k
same-code rooms is centred on k*target with sigma*k, and a co-typed leaf
adds both codes' targets. The DP modelled neither, so eligible() excluded
leaf_sharing/max_share/multi_use -- and leaf_sharing defaults True in
driver.search, so the guard excluded essentially every real run. The DP was
correct and unreachable.
Why the guard could not just be dropped, measured before touching it: on 6
harbor constructed seeds, 24 of 24 shared leaves (100%) have a real area
outside the unscaled single-room bounds. Relaxing eligible without
modelling k would have made the DP call every one of those topologies
infeasible -- false negatives that prune feasible topologies and misdirect
the NM warm-start. The guard was load-bearing.
Fix: mirror quality_size by asking the SAME Fitness object -- k =
graph.leaf_share(leaf, fit._max_share) when fit._leaf_sharing, then
target*k / sigma*k, else fit._leaf_co_type for the additive case. Same
object, same flags, same branch order, deliberately not re-derived: 39.5's
cpsat._matches bug was a solver optimising a relation the scorer had moved,
and this is the same hazard class.
Verified as an exact inversion: for every shared leaf in a real seed,
quality_size evaluated at the DP's amin and amax returns FAIL_THRESHOLD to
1e-9 (k=3 n-leaf: bounds [128.50, 231.50], both 0.100000).
superpose stays excluded for a different reason than the others: it does
not rescale a target, it changes which type the leaf is scored as, and the
collapse happens after the DP has read leaf.type.
shapecurve_warmstart/shapecurve_prune remain default off, so no current run
changes -- including the cold-start baseline in progress. They are now
applicable, which unblocks homemaker-py-v4s.
Closes homemaker-py-tym.
Lint at parity (46); tests 387 passed (3 new, 1 legacy rewritten to the new
contract rather than deleted), 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Three times in this log a verdict rested on a sample that could not have
produced it: 38.19 (programme-house claimed at N=20, resolves at N=60),
38.21 (harbor at n=3 resolves nothing finer than ~15 fails, yet every
recorded margin is smaller), 39.5/38.20 (a 10-fail cpsat margin inside a
+-23-fail noise band). Each was found years later.
experiments/ab_report.py makes it visible when the verdict is made:
minimum detectable difference = t_crit(0.975, N-1) * sd / sqrt(N)
A margin below the MDD is not a weak result but an absent one -- the
experiment could not have distinguished it from zero however it came out.
The report flags that, refuses to endorse a winner, and states the N needed.
Validated against both datasets measured this session, reproducing the
hand-computed figures exactly:
programme-house N=60 +0.567 p=0.017 MDD 0.462 verdict supported
programme-house N=20 +0.700 p=0.085 MDD 0.805 UNDERPOWERED, N~=26
harbor N=24 +1.208 p=0.502 MDD 3.669 UNDERPOWERED, N~=202
Harbor needing ~200 seeds means it cannot answer the collapse_insearch
question at any N this project would realistically run.
Fixed a defect in my own first version: with all-ties (sd=0) the MDD
collapses to zero and the naive abs(mean) < mdd reported "margin exceeds
the MDD -- verdict supported" for a margin of 0.000, with t=nan. A reporter
that endorses a zero margin is worse than none. Degenerate cases are now
explicit and distinguish all-ties from a constant non-zero difference.
Separate correction found while validating: 38.19's published p-values for
N=20 and N=40 were 0.069 and 0.045, from a normal approximation. The exact
paired t-test gives 0.085 and 0.052 -- so N=40 did NOT reach significance
either; it took N=60. The approximation was anti-conservative, making
results look more significant than they are, the same direction of error
this thread is about. Corrected at all four citing sites, and the "needs
N >= 40" guidance raised to N >= 60.
Closes homemaker-py-tco.
Lint at parity (46); tests 384 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
record_and_push used `git add -A`, so each completion committed the entire
working tree. On the live local run that meant one commit carrying 49 files
and ~1.97M insertions -- three still-running programmes' partial
coldstart-*.dom, plus unrelated evolved-*.dom -- under a message naming
only programme-house seed 0. In-flight artefacts were being recorded as if
they were results, attributed to the wrong run.
Now stages and commits exactly this run's .dom/.log/.score/.fails plus the
results TSV, via `git commit --only <paths>` so it holds regardless of what
else is staged and a concurrent edit elsewhere cannot ride along.
Note for the run currently in progress: it has the old code loaded, so it
will keep sweeping until restarted. The committed .dom files for
harbor-house, maple-court and health-centre are mid-run snapshots, not
results -- their logs show 75k/87k of 500k evals -- and should be
disregarded until those runs report their own rows.
First real result is in: programme-house seed 0 @ 500k, finish collapse
28 -> 1 fails, final 1 fail (0 hard / 1 soft), 19400s.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
The 0wr commit referenced the follow-up as 'homemaker-py-...' because the
ID did not exist yet; it is homemaker-py-tco. Its description also lost the
formula to a shell backtick -- restored via stdin:
minimum detectable difference = t_crit(0.975, N-1) * sd / sqrt(N)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
0wr asked which harbor A/Bs were decided by a narrow margin before 39.4.
Measuring harbor's variance makes the margin-by-margin triage moot.
Harbor's paired seed-to-seed sd is 6.19 fails (24 paired ON/OFF runs,
budget 2500), so n=3 resolves nothing finer than 15.4 fails. Every recorded
harbor margin is below that: 13.9 share_edge_cap 3.7, 20 qpk 8.3, 23 f1d
mixed, 37.1 tiering 6.3. So it is not that SOME harbor results were narrow
-- no harbor A/B run at three seeds could resolve the margin it reported,
independently of what 39.4 did to the programme. Of the 220 possible
3-seed subsets of the 24 runs, 56 (25%) show a clean 3/3 sweep for ON.
Re-measured 20's harbor arm, the one backing a live default:
N=3 2W/1L/0T +2.67 p=0.560
N=12 8W/3L/1T +3.50 p=0.076
N=24 13W/10L/1T +1.21 p=0.502 CI [-2.46,+4.88]
Null. The published "harbor: ON wins 3/3, 80.3 -> 72.0" was a lucky draw --
even seeds 1-3 measured here give 2W/1L, not a sweep.
So 20's claim that the qpk verdict "holds at both example scales tested" is
withdrawn and annotated in place. collapse_insearch's default rests on
programme-house alone (38.19, N=60, +0.57, p=0.017). It is not refuted on
harbor -- direction positive but indistinguishable from zero -- but harbor
must not be cited as corroboration.
Harness generalised (PROG/BUDGET/WORKERS) and results kept.
Filed homemaker-py-... : A/B harnesses should report the minimum detectable
difference for the N they run, so an underpowered verdict is visible when
it is made rather than years later.
Closes homemaker-py-0wr.
Lint at parity (46).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
38.20's cap fix took the suite from ~4.5 to ~10 min because the
assign_cpsat tests now solve to optimality. Recovered to ~6.8 min.
The bigger win was not the threading. The secondary-adjacency test ran the
cpsat arm THREE times and averaged, and its own comment says why: the cpsat
path "is not yet bit-reproducible (homemaker-py-fdp)", so one 10-seed
aggregate could straddle greedy's deterministic value and the test was
flaky by construction. fdp is fixed (38.15), so one pass says exactly what
three did -- that was work spent papering over a bug that no longer exists.
constructive_topology and _assign_adjacency_aware now forward an optional
cpsat_limits=(time_limit_s, deterministic_limit); default None keeps
solve_room_labels' defaults, so production is unchanged -- verified 24/24
harbor solves still OPTIMAL at the defaults. It is not a tuning knob: it
exists so a test whose claim does not depend on optimality can economise.
test_construction_assign_cpsat_yields_valid_seed asserts invariants only
and uses it, 91s -> 53s.
That test now also guards a real trap: too small a budget makes
solve_room_labels return None, _assign_adjacency_aware falls back to
greedy, and the test would pass while exercising nothing. It counts
fallbacks and fails if any occur.
The two quality comparisons keep the full budget deliberately -- their
claims are about the optimum, and cheapening them would weaken what they
assert. That is why the suite does not return to 4.5 min; the residue is
the honest price of optimal deterministic solves.
Also corrected a stale claim in the secondary-adjacency comment: it
measures only "not adjacent to" fails and is not a claim that cpsat seeds
better overall, which 38.20 measured markedly worse.
Closes homemaker-py-7t1.
Lint at parity (46); tests 384 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
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 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
39.5 concluded the exact CP-SAT seeder beats greedy (harbor 102 -> 92,
maple 156 -> 154). Re-checked because fdp made the arms deterministic and
3qj made the model 7.5x slower. Three findings.
A live bug in the cap, found on the way. solve_room_labels sets a
deterministic work-unit budget (4.0) and a wall-clock backstop, commented
as "a pathological-case backstop only". At 2.0s it had become THE BINDING
CONSTRAINT: 2 of 24 harbor solves returned FEASIBLE not OPTIMAL, wall time
hit exactly 2010 ms, and the deterministic budget was never reached (max
2.483/4.0). Those labellings were suboptimal AND load-dependent -- the wall
clock is exactly the cap 39.5 added the deterministic one to escape. Cause:
38.14's t -> n adjacency makes the model much harder, and the 2s value
dated from when solves took ~124 ms. Raised to 30s; 24/24 harbor and 36/36
maple now OPTIMAL, deterministic budget still in headroom (3.569/4.0).
The verdict reverses. Deterministic, 12 seeds, scored canonically:
harbor greedy 1323 (722h) 0.079 s/seed cpsat 1548 (908h) 1.623
maple greedy 1764 (777h) 0.063 s/seed cpsat 2256 (1213h) 1.327
cpsat loses on both, +225 and +492 fails at ~21x the seeding time,
concentrated in hard fails.
Time and quality have different causes. Removing t -> n from harbor takes
cpsat 1.623 -> 0.193 s/seed (8.4x faster) but it is still +205 vs greedy
(was +225) -- so the adjacency explains the time blow-up and ~9% of the
quality gap; the regression is otherwise pre-existing.
Squaring with 39.5: that section records cpsat returning 194/180/171/182
over four identical 10-seed aggregates before the determinism work. Its
10-fail harbor margin sits well inside a noise band that wide, and was
measured with fdp's id()-ordered room_slots live. The seeder-level claim
was never established rather than overturned. 39.5 annotated in place.
Absolute totals are ~6x 39.5's because the objective has changed, so they
are not comparable to that table; the within-measurement comparison is
like-for-like and is what the verdict rests on.
No default changes: assign_solver was already greedy for 37.7's independent
reason. What changes is that "cpsat wins the seeder A/B" should no longer
be cited as a reason to pursue it.
The cap fix takes the suite from ~4.5 to ~10 min and the tests cannot opt
out, since constructive_topology does not thread the solver limits through.
Filed as homemaker-py-2xk.
Closes homemaker-py-vjd.
Lint at parity (46); tests 384 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
38.18 confirmed the 1ph default-flip was sound for its own era, but that
measurement predates three changes to the objective it was measured
against -- 39.4's namespace fix, 38.10/38.11's per-space crinkliness, and
38.12's missing-space cascade -- and collapse_insearch runs collapse_global
inside every eval, valued against exactly the factors those touched. A
default carried on a superseded measurement is an assumption, not a result.
Re-ran the 1ph protocol as published on the current codebase:
N OFF ON W/L/T diff t p
published 1ph 20 7.95 7.10 11/6/3 +0.85 2.38 0.028
current objective 20 7.85 7.15 10/7/3 +0.70 1.82 0.069
current objective 40 7.60 7.03 21/14/5 +0.57 2.01 0.045
current objective 60 7.58 7.02 29/19/12 +0.57 2.45 0.017
Verdict: the default STANDS. At N=60, mean diff +0.567 fails/seed, paired
t=2.454 (df=59), p=0.0171 exact, 95% CI [+0.105, +1.029] excluding zero;
Wilcoxon signed-rank cross-check agrees (p=0.0138), which matters because
fail counts are small integers and normality is not obvious.
Two caveats. The effect is about a third smaller than published (+0.57 vs
+0.85) -- partly regression from a lucky N=20 draw, partly plausible real
erosion, since several fails collapse_global used to clear have been
redefined out of existence or made harder.
More usefully: the published N=20 can no longer detect its own effect. At
exactly that sample size the current answer is p ~= 0.069, a null by the
conventional threshold. Had I stopped at N=20 the honest report would have
been "the 1ph verdict no longer reproduces" and the default would have
looked unjustified. It took N=60 to resolve. That is the 8sh/1ph/qi6/lj3
pattern this log warns about, now biting the flagship result itself: any
future re-validation of this default needs N >= 40.
20 annotated in place so a reader of the original claim sees the current
figure. Harness takes a seed range now (APPEND=1 to extend a sweep).
Closes homemaker-py-ioe.
Lint at parity (46); tests 384 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
d86 asked for the rigorous version of 35's spot-check -- check out the
codebase at the 1ph commit, backport the iio stale-leaf-share fix, re-run
the historical seed sets.
One constraint had to be worked around: this repository's history begins
2026-07-30, six days AFTER the 1ph commit (2026-07-24), so that checkout
does not exist here. Closest reachable stand-in is 391f510 (2026-07-30), a
genuine ancestor of the iio fix and therefore pre-iio, carrying that era's
examples/ and objective. Measured there, not at the true 1ph commit, and
that is a real limitation of the reproduction.
Protocol as published: programme-house, budget 3000, 4 workers, seeds 1-20,
ON vs OFF, both arms finished with --collapse. Run twice over one worktree,
as-is then with the 22-line iio hunk applied.
OFF ON W/L/T mean diff t(df=19)
published 1ph 7.95 7.10 11/6/3 +0.85 2.38
pre-iio 391f510 8.05 7.10 11/6/3 +0.95 2.59
same + iio fix 8.05 7.10 11/6/3 +0.95 2.59
The published verdict reproduces, and the iio fix changes nothing: 0 of 40
(seed, arm) cells differ, per-seed counts equal cell by cell.
It could not have been otherwise. The bug needs a leaf carrying a STALE
share/share_type, and leaf-sharing only stamps a share where a code has
count > 1 -- programme-house declares count: 1 for all six codes. Over 8
constructed seeds at that commit, programme-house had share_type set on 0
of 56 leaves; harbor-house on 24 of 128. _collapse_value reads
leaf.share_type, so the bug is structurally unreachable on the 1ph
protocol. That is why 35 saw 2/3 harbor seeds diverge by 5-8 fails while
programme-house at N=20 moves not one cell: harbor has codes at counts 10,
6 and 5.
20's retroactive caveat is discharged for the 1ph section and stays live
for harbor-house/qpk, where shares exist and divergence was measured.
Kept experiments/rerun_1ph_protocol.sh and both result TSVs.
Closes homemaker-py-d86.
Lint at parity (46); tests 384 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
14 recorded "harbor seed 2 scored 71 then 73 on byte-identical re-runs --
parallel/BLAS non-determinism", and b8g carried that forward as noise
widening the error bars on every A/B run at n_workers>1. The premise does
not survive measurement. Nothing is non-deterministic:
score a frozen .dom, 20 repeats in one process bit-identical
same .dom, 8 processes, varied PYTHONHASHSEED bit-identical
full search, harbor seeds 0-3, n_workers 1..4,
repeated across processes bit-identical PER count
the same with OMP/OPENBLAS/MKL_NUM_THREADS=1 IDENTICAL to unpinned
The last line matters most: b8g proposed "likely a one-line env pin in the
worker pool initializer". Pinning BLAS threads changes nothing bit-for-bit,
so shipping that would have looked like a fix, done nothing, and retired
the issue.
What is real is not noise: the trajectory is a deterministic function of
n_workers. harbor seed 3, budget 1500 -- w=1/2/3 all give 64 fails with
identical bits, w=4 gives 65. Each stable across processes. The mechanism
is batch_n = min(n_workers, ...) children bred from ONE population snapshot
before any is admitted, with the shared rng consumed in a different
pattern; at w=1 each child sees the population its predecessor updated. A
4-worker run is partly generational, a 1-worker run steady-state -- same
seed, different search. Divergence is occasional (seeds 0/1/2 agreed, seed
3 did not), which is how it reads as noise when sampled.
14's observation was most likely homemaker-py-xcy, the as_completed
admission-ordering bug, which WAS non-deterministic and is fixed.
Shipped instead of a no-op env pin: driver.search's docstring states the
contract; test_search_is_reproducible_at_a_fixed_worker_count parametrises
over 2/3/4 workers, asserting each is internally stable and deliberately
NOT that they agree; test_scoring_a_frozen_design_is_deterministic guards
the floor.
The run_*_ab.sh harnesses already pin WORKERS=4, so arms inside one harness
are sound. The exposure is comparing across harnesses, or against a
historical figure whose worker count was never recorded.
Closes homemaker-py-b8g.
Lint at parity (46); tests 384 passed (3 new), 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
run_staged_search.py reported MISMATCH on its BASELINE arm -- the
LEAFSHARE=0/MULTIUSE=0 control every A/B compares against. Two facts
combined: driver.search_staged had no collapse_insearch parameter at all,
so every inner search() call inherited search()'s True default
unconditionally; and no example patterns.config sets the key, so the final
_native_score rescore got False from a bare load_config. Search optimised
one objective, the rescore graded another.
The 7ua fix pinned the key inside a fitness.load_config monkeypatch, but
that patch was installed only `if leaf_share or multi_use` -- so it fixed
every arm except the control.
Fixed in the right place: search_staged now HAS the parameter (default
True, byte-identical to the inherited default), threaded into all three
internal search() calls. The harness chooses the arm explicitly (COLLAPSE,
default 1), passes it to the search, and passes the SAME value to
_native_score, which overrides the key rather than hoping the config
carries it. The rescore mirrors the search by construction.
Verified on programme-house, budget 150:
baseline MISMATCH 1.56663e-08 vs 1.51708e-08 -> OK
COLLAPSE=0 (knob did not exist) -> OK 1.66216e-08
LEAFSHARE=1 / MULTIUSE=1 -> OK
COLLAPSE=0 scoring differently confirms the knob is not a no-op, and the
default arm's search result is unchanged, so no prior staged number moves.
Audited the other three search_staged callers: run_and_capture_91f.py
already pins collapse_insearch: True; run_island_ab.py never re-scores;
probe_harbor_floor.py did NOT pin it and had the same bug -- now fixed, and
that is the harness which produced every 13.x floor number.
The recorded mitigating factor -- only the continuous score moved, the fail
count matched, and the run_*_ab.sh greps read only the count -- is true and
is exactly what made it dangerous: a harness that reports MISMATCH on its
own control, invisibly to the metric of record, trains everyone to ignore
the warning.
Closes homemaker-py-4ok.
Lint at parity (46); tests 381 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
assign_solver="cpsat" gave a different leaf-type signature on every run
from an identical seed, in the same process. One line:
assignable = scope if scope is not None else set(leaves)
noncirc = [L for L in assignable if L not in circ] # id() order
assignable is a set of dom.Node, and Node hashes by id() -- a memory
address -- so iterating it ordered noncirc, and hence room_slots, by where
the objects happened to land in memory. That shifts between calls within
one process as allocation patterns change, with no seed involved.
Only cpsat showed it. The greedy path re-sorts every slot list with -idx[L]
as a unique tiebreak and is immune to the incoming order; CP-SAT consumes
room_slots order as its model's variable order, and the labelling problem
has many equally-optimal solutions. Greedy was not more correct, it was
masking a defect that had been there all along.
Fix: iterate the tree-ordered list, use the set only for membership.
Verified on programme-house, harbor-house and maple-court: 1 distinct
signature over 5 runs on both solvers, and 1 across 4 processes started
with different PYTHONHASHSEED, so context_types' string sets are not a
second source. test_constructive_topology_is_bit_reproducible guards both.
Method: rather than guess which set was at fault, instrument
solve_room_labels with an id-free fingerprint of inputs and outputs and
isolate the FIRST call, since later calls legitimately depend on earlier
ones through leaf types. Five runs gave five distinct first-call inputs,
placing the fault upstream of the solver in one step.
Every A/B on the cpsat path was comparing arms that differed partly by
memory layout -- 39.5's cpsat-vs-greedy verdict included, already down for
re-measurement under homemaker-py-vjd. Same id()-keying hazard as the
documented geometry._cache issue and a plausible contributor to
homemaker-py-b8g, which stays open: n_workers>1 has its own BLAS mechanism
and is not addressed here.
Closes homemaker-py-fdp.
Lint at parity (46); tests 381 passed (2 new), 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
A toilet next to a sleeping room is a positive even with no door between
them (Brand): the adjacency is what makes a later knock-through possible.
The engine already scores it -- check_adjacency runs against the unfiltered
graph_base_pre -- but only where a programme declares it, and only
programme-house did.
Declared:
harbor-house t -> n bathrooms serve the Neighborhoods (communal
sleeping); both unpinned, 6 t / 5 n
maple-court tt -> r Upper Bathrooms among Individual Rooms, both
level 2, already 62% adjacent at seed time
NOT declared, and checking before declaring is what caught these:
maple t -> n is IMPOSSIBLE. Adjacency is evaluated per level, and maple
pins t to level 0, n to level 1. Declaring it would have added six
permanently unsatisfiable fails; the 0% seed-time rate was a hard
impossibility, not search difficulty. maple's ground floor has six
bathrooms and one sleeping room (Clinic Room x1) -- a ground-floor WC in
a communal building is public, so Brand does not apply anyway.
health-centre has no dedicated WC. The ruling was that a treatment room
"may give access to a toilet, but this would be a dedicated toilet"; t9
is a Public WC and t10 a Staff WC. Earning the credit needs a WC added to
the brief -- programme authoring, filed as homemaker-py-5nw.
Both declarations are reachable (best of 8 seeds 2/3 harbor, 2/2 maple), so
the search gets a gradient not a permanent penalty. evolved-3M-nols-3
84 -> 89 fails, all five the new requirement.
Cost: cpsat assignment ~7.5x slower on harbor (0.28 -> 2.11s per seed);
greedy, the default, unchanged at 0.06s. Ordinary runs pay nothing, but
39.5's cpsat-vs-greedy verdict was measured on a cheaper problem than the
corpus now poses -- filed as homemaker-py-vjd.
Two tests were over-fitted to the old seeds and are repaired to assert
their intent, not relaxed to pass: reassign now sweeps six constructive
seeds (seed 0's better-seeded design legitimately has nothing to improve,
5 of 6 others fire), and repair_circulation asserts that repair strictly
helps plus a >=85% bar rather than a sampled 100% hardened into a
guarantee (measured 25% -> 92%, stable over 6 and 12 seeds).
Closes homemaker-py-3qj.
Lint at parity (46); tests 379 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
39.11 found health-centre demanding 240 m2 of floor on a 183 m2 plot --
131%, single storey, nowhere for the overflow to go. Every room came out at
0.60x its declared target, 100% undersized, uniformly, and no amount of
searching could fix it.
Owner's ruling: enlarge the plot, sized assuming the building has a
courtyard. The plot is a quadrilateral here, so the courtyard is interior
space the search carves out, not a hole in the site. Sizing must therefore
allow for rooms (240, declared), circulation (~65, ~27%, NOT in demand --
the search creates C leaves) and courtyard (~36).
Scaled about the polygon centroid by k = 1.4606, chosen so the INSET area
lands on 400 m2. Centroid scaling preserves the site's irregular shape and
its one private edge: same site, larger.
plot 183.2 -> 400.0 m2
rooms/plot 131% -> 60% (harbor's ratio exactly, and harbor works)
daylit perim 41.5 -> 61.3 m (49.4 needed)
median room area / (target x share) 0.60x -> 1.00x
The last figure is the one that matters -- 0.60x was the geometric
signature of the infeasibility, now level with harbor/maple's 1.01x.
The courtyard stays REQUIRED by the geometry, not merely permitted: a room
is at most 4.86 m deep before failing crinkliness, so a ~20x20 plot with a
daylit ring leaves a 106 m2 core that cannot reach an external wall.
Enlarging made room for a courtyard; it did not remove the pressure that
produces one.
evolve._preflight is now silent on health-centre.
Closes homemaker-py-7b7, unblocks homemaker-py-7xb.
Lint at parity (46); tests 379 passed, 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
check_space_counts emitted, per missing room instance, two base failures
plus one placeholder for each optional key the author happened to type --
has_size/has_width/has_proportion are literally "size" in c from the YAML.
So a missing room cost 3, 4 or 5 fails depending on nothing but how
verbosely its space was written, and under value *= 0.5 ** len(failures)
that is a 4x difference in penalty between two single rooms. The tiered
comparator inherits it directly, since n_hard is dominated by these
cascades -- the search's primary key was partly a measure of config style.
The two paths disagreed about the same room. A PRESENT room is checked on
all three qualities regardless of declaration: get_space_params fills width
and proportion from defaults, deriving width from size when absent, so
programme-house's t2 declares size: alone and still gets a real width
target of 1.633 it can fail on. Missing, it emitted one placeholder where
b1 emitted three. The cascade stands in for the checks that could not run,
and it stood in for the wrong number of them.
Fix: emit all three placeholders always -- a fixed 5 per missing instance,
mirroring the present-room path. 36 of 67 corpus codes were under-counted.
Max weight ratio between two single rooms 4x -> 1x (programme-house),
2x -> 1x (harbor, maple).
This makes fail counts LARGER and that is the point; it is a correctness
fix, not an improvement. harbor evolved-3M-nols-3 82 -> 84, generated
155 -> 174, evolved-3M 131 -> 144; maple generated unchanged (no missing
instances).
NOT taken: 1i8's other option, one fail per instance with the placeholders
informational. It fixes the verbosity dependence too but silently rescales
a missing room from 1/32 to 1/2, the same weight as one crinkliness fail.
Whether it SHOULD cost 1/32 is a real and separate question; bundling it
here would change the objective's priorities under cover of a bug fix.
Magnitude left exactly where it was, filed as homemaker-py-3i3.
Every historical corpus fail count is invalidated again, on top of 39.4 and
38.10/38.11 -- which is why the cold-start re-baseline belongs after the
objective work, not before it.
Closes homemaker-py-1i8.
Lint at parity (46); tests 379 passed (3 new), 0 failed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
The suite is green for the first time this session: 376 passed, 0 failed.
test_collapse_insearch_reproduces_94g_finish_time_result hard-coded both
endpoints of the 17 result -- 15 fails before collapse, 12 after. Those
were measured before 39.4, when harbor's effective programme was silently
32 instances because codes like cr1 were read as generic circulation; the
same layout now scores 82. But the guarantee the test exists to protect,
per its own docstring, is that in-search collapse reaches the SAME layout
as finish-time collapse on fixed geometry -- and two independent constants
never checked that. They can both drift and stay equal, or both hold and
mask an inequality.
Rewritten to compute both sides live and assert they agree, plus that
collapse does not make the layout worse. Measured: 82 -> 58 in-search, and
finish-time collapse independently reaches 58 at iters=3 and iters=6. The
invariant holds; only the constants were stale. Restating the reference
figure itself remains homemaker-py-ut5.
test_classify_fail_tier_covers_full_corpus globbed examples/**/*.fails and
asserted checked > 0. Git tracks ZERO .fails -- they are artefacts the
scorer writes beside a .dom -- so its docstring described files that by
design never exist in the repo, and it passed only on a machine that had
already run the scorer. Split into: a test that GENERATES fails by scoring
three corpus layouts picked for breadth (requiring >= 8 distinct kinds so
it cannot silently narrow); a test that an unclassifiable string actually
raises; and an opportunistic .fails sweep that never requires them.
Verified by moving every .fails out of the tree and re-running.
Closes homemaker-py-1ue.
Lint at parity (46).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
All four 500k runs died about 10 minutes in when the container was
reclaimed. No SIGTERM fired, so no .dom was written and 0 of 12 runs
completed. My plan committed results per finished run, which protected
nothing because no run reached its commit point. The bad assumption was
reading "reclaimed after inactivity" as CPU inactivity; it is conversation
inactivity, and background compute does not hold the box open.
Progress reached before the loss (from the tracked logs): harbor 24,960
evals / 40 fails, maple 14,880 / 79, health-centre 25,920 / 33,
programme-house 138,800 / 2.
The underlying gap is not environmental: a search's only output lands at
the very end or on SIGTERM, so ANY abrupt loss -- reclaimed container, OOM,
power cut -- takes the whole run with it. On a 3M-eval search that is 2.4
days of compute with no recoverable artefact.
- driver.search gains checkpoint=/checkpoint_every=: the current best is
handed to a callback at most every N evals. Rate-limited by evals, not
improvements, which come in bursts early. A failing checkpoint is logged
and swallowed -- losing a checkpoint is bad, losing the search because a
checkpoint failed is worse.
- homemaker-evolve --checkpoint-every N writes <out>.dom.checkpoint via
mkstemp + os.replace, so a crash can never catch it half-written. It is
deliberately NOT the output path: a checkpoint is a leaf-sharing run's
internal best, dishonest under the canonical scorer until the finish
stage unfolds it (homemaker-py-3l6), and must not be mistaken for the
finished article.
- Verified the written checkpoint re-loads as a valid .dom.
Default off, so behaviour is unchanged without the flag.
Lint at parity (46); tests 372 passed (3 new), same 2 pre-existing failures.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
The four seed-0 runs are live; their progress logs are the improvement
history DESIGN.md cites for a long run (cf. evolve-3M*.log). Tracking them
now so nothing is stranded if the container is reclaimed mid-run -- the
runner rewrites them on each completion anyway.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Cold-start re-baseline after the DESIGN.md 38.10/38.11 objective
change. Single worker (avoids homemaker-py-b8g), scored by the
shipped scorer from the programme directory.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
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 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Ruling: corridors need daylight. Only rooms not occupied from day to day --
a cupboard, a store, a plant room -- do without it.
That overturns the classification 38.8 and 38.9 rested on. Those sections
exempted internal circulation, covered courtyards, WCs, laundries and
reception on my inference rather than any ruling. None are exempt: a
corridor is occupied all day every day, a waiting room likewise, a laundry
is a room people spend time in, a sterilisation room is a workplace.
Re-measured with the classification READ FROM THE CORPUS (a space is exempt
exactly when its own patterns.config declares crinkliness: none) instead of
inferred: 24 of 271 crinkliness fails (9%) were not defects -- not 136
(50%), not 61%. Overstated by about six times.
- uncrinkliness_circulation stays at [5/6, 1.1/3]. 38.10 called its
equality with the habitable target the purest case of an untuned value;
it is not a bug, it is the correct answer reached by default, since
corridors want daylight on the same terms as rooms.
- corpus declarations narrowed 18 -> 14. usage: utility was too coarse and
swept in Laundry Rooms and a Sterilisation Room. What remains is
storage, plant/mechanical, utilities closets and a records room.
- audit_crinkliness_truth.py rebuilt to read the classification from the
configs rather than infer it from usage:, so it cannot drift from the
ruling again.
- 38.8/38.9's inflated figures flagged in place, with 38.11 carrying the
correction.
What survives, none of it dependent on the classification: the 38.6
critique of the three modes; usage_daylight being mis-keyed; the 38.8 A/B
yardstick being wrong; and the per-space crinkliness mechanism itself.
ssz's opening measurement was right but its reading was wrong -- under this
ruling a buried leaf usually IS a defect, so scoring it zero is largely
correct. The narrowed remnant is that the score is FLAT rather than low, so
two equally-buried layouts cannot be ranked. Filed as homemaker-py-9gj; it
is a search-mechanics problem, not a calibration one.
Lint at parity (46); tests 369 passed, 2 pre-existing failures (ut5's stale
baseline and 1ue), both failing identically before this change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
The owner's fixture commit (0d4ae7a) took fresh-clone failures 7 -> 2, so
bdf is closed. The 2 remaining are different bugs:
- ut5 now has a failing test attached. test_collapse_insearch hard-codes
15 fails for evolved-3M.dom; measured 86 at 0d4ae7a and 81 after the ssz
crinkliness change. The gap is the 39.4 namespace fix (the 15 dates from
when harbor's effective programme was 32 instances because cr1 and
friends were read as generic circulation); the 5 is this session's
change, in the expected direction.
- 1ue (new): test_classify_fail_tier_covers_full_corpus globs
examples/**/*.fails and asserts checked > 0, but those are generated
artefacts absent from a clean tree, so it asserts on the developer's
working tree rather than on the code.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
Owner's ruling, and it corrects the design not just the classification: the
daylight requirement is already defined in the crinkliness. The gaussian's
compact side IS "too little exposed wall per unit floor"; its exposed side
is envelope cost. 38.9's proposed daylight: axis was redundant, and keying
it off usage: was worse than redundant.
What was actually missing: crinkliness is the only leaf quality factor with
no per-space target. size, width and proportion are all declared by the
space; crinkliness was one global number for every room in every building.
crinkliness: none -> no minimum-exposure requirement, may be buried
crinkliness: [t, s] -> this space's own target
key absent -> the global uncrinkliness target, as today
`none` clips the factor on the compact side, it does not switch it off:
over-exposure is still penalised, because a crinkly leaf costs envelope
whatever it holds. A store may be buried; a store may not be a starfish.
The mechanism is backward compatible -- an absent key resolves to the
global target, so shipping it changes no score. Behaviour changes only
where a config declares something, which keeps the objective change
visible per programme in config rather than hidden in a default.
Owner's classification: everything a person occupies wants a window, WCs
and reception/waiting/foyer included; only stores, plant, records and
laundry do not. migrate_crinkliness_key.py declared crinkliness: none on 18
corpus spaces. Crinkliness fails 271 -> 243, of which not-defects 136 (50%)
-> 108 (44%); the 28 that went are exactly the utility fails.
usage_daylight and needs_daylight are removed as mis-keyed, and
DAYLIGHT_USAGES with them -- a vocabulary value should exist only where the
engine treats it differently. The historical crinkliness_mode modes stay,
default off, so 38.6/38.8 remain reproducible.
uncrinkliness_circulation is now settable to none like any space, but its
default is left unchanged pending a ruling: corridors were not among the
groups ruled on and are 63% of the remaining phantom fails.
Lint at parity (46); tests 364 passed, same 7 pre-existing fixture failures.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
