a7ef9e2fa0
Owner: "I think a corridor could be worth a sixth of a room, this is ok. maybe we should dump the ratio_circulation altogether if there is already a pressure in circulation caused by the cost benefit ratio per msq. this is the kind of thing we want to root out of the scoring model: anything that is double counting, or using a gaussian where a linear ramp is appropriate, etc." value_circulation = 50 stands; hxi's rate question is closed. The duplication argument is stronger than it first looks. score = value/cost is already a ratio, so the per-m2 economics (50 against a build cost of 200) is not merely an absolute pressure -- adding corridor moves value/cost by an amount that depends on how much of the building is already corridor. It is ALREADY proportional. ratio_circulation said the same thing again as a whole-building multiplier, on a curve where twice the corridor is far more than twice as bad. Correction to my own first measurement: I overrode ratio_circulation and got scores going DOWN when a <=1 multiplier was removed, which is impossible. All four corpus programmes DECLARE ratio_circulation, so the CONF_DEFAULTS value I had changed was never in play and the two arms differed only in sigma. Same trap as value_supported in 39.19. Against the keep-it case, recorded because it is the one real argument: three of four declare a POSITIVE target (harbor/maple 0.08, health-centre 0.10), making the term formally two-sided rather than "less is better". It does not survive the numbers -- the lower side is worth at most 13.3% on the large programmes against 99% on the upper side, and "a building needs some circulation" is enforced structurally by access and connectivity, which no amount of value can buy off. Disabled in CONF_DEFAULTS and the four corpus configs, each with the reason inline and a note that a [target, sigma] pair re-enables it. Fail sets unchanged; it was always a value multiplier. Scores +42% to +7712%. 39.24 also sweeps every remaining term against the owner's two tests. Verdicts: perpendicular, proportion, width, crinkliness, access, size's lower side, ratio_outside, staircase volume and the count/limit fails are all sound. Filed as homemaker-py-dpt: size's UPPER side (cost already charges area; 82% of size fails are over-target), the minimum-internal-area factor (a third statement of "build the rooms"), the 0.5**n_fails curve (a ruling, not a measurement), and two dead paths -- ratio_public/private_outside, which no config declares, and the daylight factor pinned to 1.0 since the descope. Also updated a test I added last turn which asserted ratio_circulation was the second charge; it now pins that the linear ramp is the ONLY one. 419 passed. Closes homemaker-py-hxi. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MJ84Feep79Hhm3E4zZJmnB
112 lines
2.5 KiB
Text
112 lines
2.5 KiB
Text
---
|
|
# Example patterns.config for programme-driven building evolution
|
|
#
|
|
# This file demonstrates how to define a building programme within
|
|
# the standard patterns.config file format. The presence of the
|
|
# 'spaces' key automatically triggers programme-driven mode.
|
|
|
|
# Building programme: 2-bedroom house with ensuite
|
|
spaces:
|
|
b1:
|
|
usage: bedroom
|
|
name: Master Bedroom
|
|
size:
|
|
- 16.0
|
|
- 4.0
|
|
width:
|
|
- 4.0
|
|
- 1.0
|
|
proportion:
|
|
- 1.5
|
|
- 0.5
|
|
adjacency:
|
|
- c
|
|
t1:
|
|
usage: toilet
|
|
name: Ensuite Bathroom
|
|
size:
|
|
- 5.0
|
|
- 1.5
|
|
width:
|
|
- 2.5
|
|
- 0.5
|
|
adjacency:
|
|
- b1
|
|
b2:
|
|
usage: bedroom
|
|
name: Second Bedroom
|
|
size:
|
|
- 12.0
|
|
- 3.0
|
|
width:
|
|
- 3.5
|
|
- 0.8
|
|
adjacency:
|
|
- c
|
|
t2:
|
|
usage: toilet
|
|
name: Guest Bathroom
|
|
size:
|
|
- 4.0
|
|
- 1.5
|
|
adjacency:
|
|
- c
|
|
l1:
|
|
usage: living
|
|
name: Living/Dining/Kitchen
|
|
size:
|
|
- 35.0
|
|
- 8.0
|
|
width:
|
|
- 4.5
|
|
- 1.0
|
|
proportion:
|
|
- 2.0
|
|
- 0.8
|
|
level: 0
|
|
adjacency:
|
|
- c
|
|
t3:
|
|
usage: toilet
|
|
name: Ground Floor WC
|
|
size:
|
|
- 3.0
|
|
- 1.0
|
|
adjacency:
|
|
- c
|
|
level: 0
|
|
|
|
# Building constraints
|
|
storey_minimum: 2
|
|
storey_limit: 5
|
|
force_roof_garden: 0
|
|
|
|
# Circulation ratio (penalise excessive corridors)
|
|
# homemaker-py-hxi (DESIGN.md §39.24): disabled. The score is value/cost, a
|
|
# ratio, so the per-m2 economics (circulation worth 50 against a build cost of
|
|
# 200) is ALREADY a proportional pressure against circulation -- this said the
|
|
# same thing a second time, and with a curve where twice the corridor is far
|
|
# more than twice as bad. Its other side, "a building needs some circulation",
|
|
# was worth at most 13% here and is enforced structurally anyway by the access
|
|
# and connectivity checks. Set a [target, sigma] pair to re-enable.
|
|
ratio_circulation:
|
|
|
|
# Outside space ratio
|
|
ratio_outside:
|
|
- 0.30
|
|
- 0.15
|
|
|
|
# Staircase requirements
|
|
staircase_min: 1
|
|
staircase_max: 1
|
|
|
|
# Other standard parameters can be included
|
|
value_inside: 300.0
|
|
value_circulation: 50.0
|
|
value_outside: 100.0
|
|
# homemaker-py-ecx (DESIGN.md §39.19): an upper-level terrace is worth what
|
|
# outdoor space is worth (value_outside); it is the COST that differs by level
|
|
# (outside 10.0 vs outside_supported 110.0), not the value. At 300.0 -- the
|
|
# `value_inside` rate -- a terrace was worth more per square metre than a real
|
|
# internal room, which the owner ruled out.
|
|
value_supported: 100.0
|