7d67745ff837ea784c2667c4f81f835be421fdab
3
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Andy Dixon
|
7d67745ff8 |
test(agency): the Part L incident scenario end to end, and failure modes
The full incident scenario now runs against the assembled daemon: an operator goal becomes a want to reduce uncertainty, an investigation intention and a diagnosis plan; telemetry is read; logs need authority, so a scoped request with risk, mitigation and fallback is raised and the intention is blocked until an operator grants it; the logs are read with personal data masked and summarised back into cognition; the operator supplies the judgement that a restart should help; a standing commitment turns the restart into a request for approval; after approval the typed capability runs and health is verified rather than assumed; the fault persists, so a prediction error weakens the supporting belief, the plan is replanned into an escalation that reuses the live log grant and does not repeat the restart; once the database is fixed a second approved restart verifies, the procedure is learnt, and "Why did you restart atlas-worker?" is answered from the recorded chain and scores as supported. Changes the scenario exposed: - New operator goals are raised by the goal monitor, so a cycle runs and wants are derived from them. - Intentions link live beliefs about their action's target, so a failed expectation is evidence against the belief it rested on and the plan lists it as an assumption. - Reconsideration reacts to a plan's own intention only; a subordinate "obtain approval" intention shares the plan and previously caused the parent's plan to be closed. - The harness accepts a clock for the executor's verification windows. Further failure-mode tests: a retracted assumption replans a waiting plan away from the restart and withdraws its approval request; conflicting commitments are raised once in a cycle while both stay represented. |
||
|
Andy Dixon
|
6fdc3908f5 |
feat(research): ablations, broadcast and self-model experiments, counterfactuals
A framework for testing functional properties of the architecture (Part C). None of it claims consciousness; every measure has an operational definition in research.Measures. - Ablations (attention, memory retrieval, affect, metacognition, commitments, volition, global workspace, curiosity, association, goals, narrative, notifications) and workspace overrides (force a matching candidate in or out of admission) live in a fork's cognitive configuration. Original minds refuse them on create and update; only snapshot restores may carry them, so they are part of the configuration digest. Excluded candidates are recorded with fate "excluded". - Self-model experiments override a fork's self-model (capabilities, identity, goals, knowledge gaps) without touching policy. When an action's effective policy disagrees with the self-model, cognition records a self_model_mismatch and corrects the entry; experiments report self-model accuracy and correction latency. - Counterfactual experiments replay a mind's recorded stimuli from a snapshot with chosen events omitted; the report lists what differed in beliefs, wants, intentions, memories, attention and capability decisions, in a form introspection can cite. - Experiments record a protocol (kind, independent variable, controlled variables, measures), per-variant volition, plan, downstream-by-category (events reachable from each stimulus through recorded links), introspection and self-model measures and event ranges; comparisons add want, intention and plan-capability overlap, measure ranges, a descriptive architecture share and a downstream delta; reproducibility is labelled against the previous run of the same definition. - research.Agency computes want→intention, intention→action, abandonment, commitment fulfilment and conflict, blocked intentions, replanning, outcome success and introspection accuracy; MetacognitiveCalibration relates confidence and expressed uncertainty in replies to later belief revision, with Brier scores for each half of the period. - The sandbox test harness gains volition, planning, agency and research but not the motivation hook, whose wall-clock decay would make replay comparisons timing-dependent. |
||
|
Andy Dixon
|
03e2d7890a |
feat(cognition): wanting, intending and acting inside the cognitive cycle
Volition and planning now run as part of cognition (PLAN §8.2 item 3):
- A volition hook derives wants after each cycle from what it perceived
and produced, satisfies answer wants when a reply is sent, raises due,
overdue, expired and conflicting commitments, and expires faded wants.
Events produced by earlier cycles are not re-derived.
- An intend process proposes deciding about the strongest undecided
wants; the candidate competes for the workspace, so attention gates
what the mind decides to pursue. The handler makes value tensions
explicit (caution against disruptive writes, privacy against reading
personal data), resolves them with recorded scores, runs deterministic
formation with commitments, policy preview, goals and values, records
the decision whatever it is, and plans a formed intention in the same
transaction. Operator requests carry their own weight in formation.
- Explicit requests in conversation ("restart <unit>", "logs for <unit>",
"fetch <url>") become wants with proposed means instead of direct
invocations; the reply says the request was recorded and that acting
depends on commitments and policy.
- The executor is woken after commits, runs in a scheduler-owned loop and
reacts to the event bus: a new commitment tightens or abandons affected
intentions (withdrawing their pending approvals), a weakened assumption
or a finished goal triggers reconsideration. A tightened plan may reuse
its strategy; a failed one may not.
- Metacognition gains volition checks: strong wants repeatedly set aside,
intentions with no recorded reason, intentions a commitment forbids,
commitments that cannot be kept, churn, repeated failed execution,
cost outweighing value, and intentions that outlived their goal.
- A plan model role and prompt let a model propose decompositions that
the planner validates. Ablations are a fork-only configuration field.
- Approvals required by an intention are described as coming from a
commitment or value constraint. The expectation after an approved
action is linked to the execution event, not the request.
- The wants.values column of the unreleased migration 0026 is renamed
value_keys: VALUES is reserved and the generic snapshot restore does
not quote identifiers.
- The hostile-output security test now uses a message that asks for no
action, because an operator's "status of <unit>" is legitimately a
read-only status check.
|