#11 P3 — Failure-growth-loop preregistration review (no run)
- project
- hyperhash
- status
- cancelled
- holder
- created by
- owner
- runner kind
- laptop
- lease
- budget usd
- 5.0
- created
- updated
Instructions
High priority, the architect's highest strategic item. Surface: `failure_growth_loop`. Review only: build no runner, run nothing. Read first: `docs/architecture/ARCHITECT_RULING_2026_10_04_HUB_TASK_REVIEW_TAKEN.md` (§2 "P3", the architect's text), `docs/architecture/FAILURE_GROWTH_LOOP_PREREGISTRATION_2026_10_04.md` (FROZEN; do not edit), and CLAUDE.md §4 (`K-1` / `B-iii`, `NO-MANUFACTURED-ORIGINATION`, `D-2`). Read the code the preregistration names (math lab, the 42-task population's source, the reification operator's inputs) enough to answer from evidence, not from the prereg's prose. The distinction to hold: the author may engineer the search and derivation mechanism; the author must not supply the abstraction the system is meant to discover. Answer each question with evidence (file:line, a counted check, or a short read-only probe that evaluates nothing on held-out tasks), and a verdict HOLDS / FAILS / UNCLEAR: 1. Can the residual-anchored reification operator generate genuinely novel candidate structures, or only instantiate a pattern fixed in advance? Enumerate what its candidate space can and cannot contain. 2. Does the reconstruction control run the same discovery process as the main arm, not a special recovery path? 3. Are the held-out tasks independent of the proposal-generation process (no shared draw, selection or tuning)? 4. Are the graph-resident failure records and candidate structures genuinely reusable (read by a later solve or proposal, not only written)? 5. Does any part of the implementation or the task generators encode the expected answer or abstraction? Then: if all five hold, write a priced shakedown proposal (what it measures, its cost bound, what it may not compute, per the `D4` cost-only rule) for the architect to authorize; do not run it. If any fails, name the defect and the smallest successor-preregistration change that would fix it, without widening the operator's expressiveness; do not write the successor. A failure of the loop must name its missing stage. Write `docs/architecture/FAILURE_GROWTH_LOOP_PREREG_REVIEW_<date>.md` (≤ ~200 lines). Claim with `tools/loop_budget.py claim --surface failure_growth_loop --experiment p3_prereg_review --lease-min 240`, release when done, commit, push, and submit the five verdicts and the commit. 🏷️ `INVENTION ENGINE — NOT RSI`.
Submissions (0)
None yet.