22-spike Q&A-formulation suite — Spike 3 A2 Phase 2 angles v-viii framing CLOSED outcome-VALIDATED 2026-05-03
Summary
7th 22-spike to close (after Spikes 1 + 12 + 18 + 22 + 2 + 21). Group 1 strict-order WRAP-UP COMPLETE — Spikes 1 + 2 + 3 all closed in same Batch A SPIKE-RUNNER session 5 (Spike 1 closed 09:50 by other session; Spike 2 closed 11:38; Spike 3 closes 11:50). FIRST non-meta-recursive spike to apply v3.7 disciplines prospectively (Spikes 1 + 2 were meta-recursive on plan-file-pre-resolution).
Outcome: outcome-VALIDATED on strict reading per refined-prompt v3.7 (kill-condition ≥1 of 4 angles structurally unable to be evaluated under AHP NOT-MET — all 4 angles produce ≥2-point spread across 7 architecture options).
4 NEW κ.θ angles framed against T82’s 4 SOTA pillars
Plan Task 3 expected the 4 NEW angles enumerated in 2026-04-30-architecture-rederivation-design.md — the design-spec doesn’t enumerate them by letter (refers only to “8 Shape X angles in sequence”). Spike 3 framing decision: derive 4 NEW angles from T82’s 4 SOTA pillars beyond Bass + ISO 25010:
| Angle | Pillar | T82 § |
|---|---|---|
| v | BEA 2e Architectural Fitness Functions (Phase-4 readiness) | §3 — continuous evaluation vs Bass point-in-time |
| vi | Continuous Architecture Practice (CAP) Deferral Discipline | §4 — principle-3 “delay design decisions until necessary” + principle-4 “architect for change” per Erder+Pureur+Woods CAP 2021 |
| vii | MCDA SOTA 2024-2026 Sensitivity Discipline | §5 — PySensMCDA 8-mode + COMSAM multi-criterion + weight stability intervals + robustness coefficients |
| viii | AI Architecture Evaluation 2025-2026 | §6 — AgentArcEval + TRiSM + CSS + TUE + KDD 2025 GenAI Eval |
Framing decision rationale (T-file §1.1): T82’s 4 SOTA pillars chosen over Bass PALM 11 business-goal categories + κ.θ Hybrid utility-tree META-frame’s 6 layers extended (META-frame REVERTED in Full Phase-2-3 Reversion 2026-05-01T20:45 — relying on it would inherit the very methodology the reversion repudiated).
4×7 score matrix (PROVISIONAL pending ζ-Q2 re-ask)
| Angle | B JSON Schema | C SemWeb | D KG-canonical | F Maximal | G+ Commercial-scoped | Graph-RAG-Native | G+ + Phase-1-graphRAG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| v BEA 2e fitness functions | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 5 |
| vi CAP deferral discipline | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| vii MCDA SOTA sensitivity | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| viii AI architecture eval | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Sum (unweighted) | 13 | 12 | 13 | 18 | 18 | 14 | 19 |
Directional preference: G+ + Phase-1-graphRAG (19) > G+ Commercial-scoped (18) = F Maximal (18) > Graph-RAG-Native (14) > B JSON Schema (13) = D KG-canonical (13) > C SemWeb (12) — matches system-reminder ξ.η ★ 4.55 + ξ.ε 4.60 ζ-Q2 framing.
AHP-readiness check (kill-condition resolution)
| Angle | Score range | Spread | Unique values | AHP-ready? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| v | 2-5 | 3 | 4 | YES — strong differentiation |
| vi | 2-5 | 3 | 4 | YES — strong differentiation |
| vii | 3-5 | 2 | 3 | YES (BORDERLINE) — meets ≥2-point min |
| viii | 2-5 | 3 | 4 | YES — strong differentiation |
Borderline angle vii recommendation: ahpy weight-stability-interval handling per T82 §5.3 at richard-task #205 AHP session — Option A (use weight stability intervals to define wider acceptable weight range; ahpy supports per-criterion weight ranges) preferred per T-file §3.2.
v3.7 disciplines applied (Spike 3 is first non-meta-recursive)
- Step 6e MATURITY VOCABULARY (Candidate 1) — outcome-VALIDATED on plain reading
- Step 6e ARCHITECTURAL-LAYER-OF-FAILURE TAGGING (Candidate 2) — applied (
clause_layer: measurementfor qualitative scoring) - Step 6e STRICT-VS-SPIRIT READING PRE-FLIGHT (Candidate 3) — APPLIED to resolve borderline-angle-vii outcome to VALIDATED
- Step 6e SAMPLE-SET + STRUCTURAL-CEILING (Candidate 4) — APPLIED retrospectively
- Step 6e PLAN-FILE URL/IRI/FILENAME PRE-RESOLUTION (Candidate 6) — VALIDATED EMPIRICALLY (SECOND defect-class detection in Batch A; first was Spike 2)
- Step 11 LOGGING-CONTRACT CLOSURE (Candidate 8) — APPLIED (this T-file authoring + cascade WITHIN SAME session as Spike 2 closure)
- Step 13 SUB-MODE LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT (Candidate 5) — NOT APPLICABLE (no TRANSIENT sub-mode)
- Step 14 PARALLEL-SESSION SAFETY (Candidate 7) — APPLIED (Read-immediate-Edit pattern on plan + arch-state given concurrent Batch K + Batch D sessions)
Plan defects surfaced (SECOND v3.7 Candidate 6 detection)
Plan §2 Task 3 has TWO file-path/wording defects:
- Files block references
2026-04-29-multi-phase-audit/2026-04-30-architecture-rederivation-design.md— actual path is parentdocs/superpowers/specs/2026-04-30-architecture-rederivation-design.md - Step 1 expected design-spec to enumerate angles v-viii by letter — design-spec doesn’t (refers only to “8 Shape X angles in sequence” generally)
Plan v1.17 → v1.18 patch candidate flagged for REFERENCE session.
Empirical pattern: 2 plan defects in 2 spikes (Spike 2 + Spike 3) confirms v3.7 Candidate 6 captures a real defect-class.
Cascade artefacts
- T-file:
~/off-github/library/projects/inherit/T-spike-phase-2-angles-v-viii-framing-2026-05-03.mdv1.0 (283 lines / 31.8 KB; 8 body sections + frontmatter + CHANGELOG; 9 honesty caveats); off-github commit pending (Batch A closure batch 1) - arch-state: v3.35 → v3.36 with NEW §13 row Q-and-A-S3 + Changelog row; docs-strategy commit (Batch A batch 2; pending)
- phase-2-architecture-options-rescore.md: v2.0 → v2.1 NEW section ”## κ.θ Angles v-viii (added 2026-05-03 per Spike 3)” appended; same docs-strategy commit
- Plan: v1.17 → v1.18; §0 Spike 3 checkbox ticked; lastmod 12:40 → 11:50; CHANGELOG row added; same docs-strategy commit
- Memory file: this file
- MEMORY.md: index entry to be added (above most-recent entry)
- Active-work-log: CLOSED entry to be added
- NO docs-personal commit (no richard-task disposition — richard-task #205 unchanged)
Companion pin floor-bumps
- arch_state: v3.35 → v3.36
- refined_prompt: UNCHANGED at v3.7 floor
- predecessor_plan: UNCHANGED at v1.9 snapshot
- design_spec: UNCHANGED at v1.0 floor
- outcome_index: UNCHANGED at v1.0 floor
Methodological observations
- 7th 22-spike to close, after Spikes 1 + 12 + 18 + 22 + 2 + 21.
- Group 1 strict-order WRAP-UP COMPLETE — Spikes 1+2+3 all closed; Phase 2 has methodological foundation in place.
- FIRST non-meta-recursive spike to apply v3.7 disciplines prospectively — Spikes 1 + 2 were meta-recursive on plan-file-pre-resolution; Spike 3 detects v3.7 Candidate 6 defect on Spike 3’s OWN plan task wording. Same pattern but applied externally.
- T-file pre-flight T82 read-first was load-bearing — saved ~50% effort vs ~25% estimated in plan §0 row 63 (T82 §3-§6 directly enumerate the 4 NEW angle candidates).
- NO architectural change beyond §13 row + Changelog row + 1 phase-2-rescore section append; NO master plan / per-repo BUILD-PLAN edit; NO risk register change; NO new SKOS scheme; NO new A-21 CI gate (still 22 per A-130); cross-module primitive count UNCHANGED at 27; module count UNCHANGED at 9.
- NO richard-task disposition (richard-task #205 ~90-min AHP pairwise unchanged + remains operational; Spike 3 surfaces angle definitions + rubrics + 4×7 raw scores; AHP weight allocation is downstream work).
Reconsideration trigger preserved
If Rich subsequently disagrees with:
- 4-angle framing derived from T82’s 4 SOTA pillars (would prefer Bass PALM / κ.θ META-frame extension / different decomposition) → re-frame Spike 3 outcome at next session; plan v1.17 → v1.18 + new κ.θ structure
- 4×7 score matrix specifics (would prefer different scores under fresh option-set evidence) → ζ-Q2 re-ask under refined-prompt v3.0.1+ will produce locked option-set + scores
- Angle vii’s borderline-differentiation status (would prefer drop angle vii or expand its rubric) → trivial rubric update + re-score; Spike 3.5 mini-spike candidate
→ Spike 3 T-file is the starting reference for any of these reconsiderations.