TT Claude Memory

project_zeta_q14_alignment_axiom_strength_fresh_under_r2_2026_05_01

Properties1
descriptionζ-Q14 fresh-asks ζ-Q5 alignment-axiom strength under R2 framing per Rich directive; A-141 registers SSSOM TSV verificationTier column per A-55 MaturityScheme reuse third-time; FOURTH CONSECUTIVE CORE Rich-pattern pick; pattern fully validated

5 min read

⚠️ PRE-REFINED-PROMPT-archived 2026-05-01T20:45 BST per Full Phase-2-3 Reversion — this memory file records a lock that has been DISCARDED. The Q is queued for re-ask under refined-prompt v3.0 discipline. Original lock content preserved below for forensic continuity. Do not act on this memory’s recommendations as if locked. Audit-record: ~/testatetech/docs-strategy/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-04-29-multi-phase-audit/audit-records/2026-05-01-full-phase-2-3-re-ask-under-refined-prompt.md v1.0. Refined-prompt v3.0 reference: ~/testatetech/docs-strategy/docs/superpowers/specs/2026-04-29-multi-phase-audit/refined-end-of-turn-directive.md.

ζ-Q14 LOCKED Ψ.γ Status quo + A-55 verification-tier annotation 2026-05-01

Locked: 2026-05-01T06:10 BST. Amendment: A-141 in arch-state v3.26.

Why ζ-Q14 was asked

Rich directive 2026-05-01T05:55: “alignment-axiom strength or t-box layering… need to be revisited due to us reversing ω.γ Hybrid multi-parent lock”. ζ-Q5 was locked ψ.γ SSSOM-canonical + Prudhomme-vendored under ω.γ on 2026-04-30T21:15 BST. MQ-001 R2 reversal then partial-amended (Prudhomme dropped; SSSOM + ROBOT + A-20.1 + 3 T12 PRESERVED). Result: ψ.γ’ state. But ψ.γ’ was a partial-amend, not a fresh-derivation under R2. Hence fresh-ask: should alignment-axiom strategy be re-derived under R2, or does ψ.γ’ suffice?

Boundary: ζ-Q6 t-box layering was R2-reframed at lock-time (φ.α’ α 3-layer; A-132) so does NOT need fresh-ask. ζ-Q5 alignment-axiom is the only Phase-2 lock that received only a partial-amend.

What Ψ.γ specifies

  • A-141 NEW: SSSOM TSV catalog rows gain verificationTier annotation column per A-55 MaturityScheme reuse
  • Per-row tier: Draft (candidate alignment; not IRI-verified) / Candidate (IRI-verified + 1-maintainer-reviewed; not yet stress-tested) / Stable (IRI-verified + reviewed + survived Phase-1.5 stress-test cells)
  • A-79 ROBOT pipeline generates per-tier filtered SSSOM views (Stable for production conformance; Draft + Candidate for in-development modules)
  • A-21 G-SSSOM-VALIDATE gate extended to validate verificationTier enum (NO new gate; gate count UNCHANGED at 21)
  • SSSOM 1.1 curation_rule slot as natural accommodation per T10 D1 finding
  • A-55 MaturityScheme reuse — third reuse this session (NO new SKOS scheme; count UNCHANGED at 23)
  • NO reversal of ζ-Q5 ψ.γ’ lock — partial-amend was substantially correct under R2; ζ-Q14 is quality enhancement only
  • Phase-3 Sprint S1 effort: ~2-4 hours one-off SSSOM TSV column extension + per-row tier assignment

What Ψ.γ does NOT include

  • NO Maximalist (Ψ.α) or Minimalist (Ψ.β) row reshaping
  • NO AI-assisted candidate authoring (Ψ.δ) — Phase-2+ optionality
  • NO multi-format peer EDOAL (Ψ.ε) — inline spike confirmed NOT viable
  • NO Hybrid γ+δ (Ψ.ζ) — Rich-pattern CORE pick
  • NO reverse-publishing standards-track (Ψ.η) — Phase-2+ optionality
  • NO embedding-grounded coherence verification (Ψ.θ) — Phase-2+ optionality
  • NO new SKOS scheme (count UNCHANGED at 23)
  • NO new A-21 CI gates (count UNCHANGED at 21)
  • NO new richard-tasks under Ψ.γ CORE

Why Ψ.γ won

  • Margin 0.42 ABOVE 0.20 threshold to Ψ.β (R2-driven Minimalist 4.53)
  • Margin 0.47 to Ψ.ζ (Hybrid γ+δ 4.48)
  • 6/8 sensitivity perturbations preserve Ψ.γ
  • 13/14 criteria score 5/5 — most consistent option of any ζ.2 decision so far (matches ζ-Q7 χ.γ pattern)
  • Maintainability + OpEx + Cost (#6/7/8 wt 0.10/0.09/0.09) all 5/5: A-55 reuse is annotation-only; NO infrastructure
  • Standards-track (#11) + Tooling (#13) + Acquirer (#14) all 5/5: SSSOM 1.1 curation_rule slot natural accommodation; ROBOT pipeline pickup zero-cost
  • Status quo + minor enhancement = lowest-risk under R2

Inline spike findings (per Rich’s “spikes must not be delayed” directive)

EDOAL maturity spike (§4.3 of cascade file)

  • INRIA Alignment API; EDOAL is sub-language for expressive alignment
  • Last major release ~2014 (Alignment API 4.x); minimal post-2014 adoption
  • More expressive than SSSOM (relations, datatype mappings, transformations)
  • Standards-track: NOT on W3C path
  • Tooling: limited (no equivalent of sssom-py / ROBOT plugin)
  • SSSOM (2022+) is modern successor — biomedical community standard; FAIR-aligned; LinkML-driven; active 1.1 development
  • Verdict: EDOAL NOT viable as multi-format peer for v2 production. No library T-file authored Phase-1 (Phase-2+ if EDOAL ever revives).

KGCL adaptation spike (§4.4 of cascade file)

  • Mungall, Matentzoglu et al.; OBO-ecosystem; LinkML schema
  • Tracks node additions/deletions/relabellings/edge changes for ontology evolution
  • NOT specifically for SSSOM TSV change tracking — designed for upstream ontologies
  • Could be adapted with schema bridge for SSSOM TSV row evolution; adaptation cost > benefit Phase-1
  • Verdict: KGCL NOT a Phase-1 ζ-Q14 option; possibly Phase-2+ for SSSOM TSV row evolution tracking. No library T-file authored Phase-1.

Convergence

15 of 16 ζ.2-related decisions convergent under ζ.2 methodology pivot.

Methodological observations

  1. FOURTH CONSECUTIVE CORE Rich-pattern pick — ζ-Q11 π.β + ζ-Q12 Θ.β + ζ-Q13 Δ.β + ζ-Q14 Ψ.γ all CORE. Pattern fully validated even at above-threshold margin (Ψ.γ 0.42 to Ψ.β; 0.47 to Ψ.ζ). Discipline feedback_phase_3_q_minimum_change_preference ready to codify at session-close (4 data points; convergent across CORE-vs-Hybrid CORE-vs-additive CORE-vs-comprehensive CORE-vs-status-quo-only).
  2. A-55 MaturityScheme reuse pattern fully emerged — third consecutive reuse this session (registrations verification tier ζ-Q13 + SSSOM verificationTier annotation ζ-Q14 + earlier session A-104 + A-115 patterns). Codify as feedback_a_55_maturity_scheme_reuse_for_n_tier_categorisation discipline candidate.
  3. Most consistent option of any ζ.2 decision so far: 13/14 criteria 5/5 (matches ζ-Q7 χ.γ pattern from 2026-05-01T04:15).
  4. R2 partial-amend was substantially correct: ψ.γ’ suffices; ζ-Q14 is quality enhancement only. NO structural revision needed.
  5. Phase-3 audit converging extremely fast: Q-6 (ζ-Q14) closes within ~15 minutes of Q-5 (ζ-Q13). Phase-3 Q-count revised toward ~18-20 (was 20-30 → 20-26 → ~20).
  6. SSSOM 1.1 pin from day one per T10 D1 (declaring 1.0 is self-contradictory because sssom_version slot was introduced in 1.1). A-141.1 sub-amendment candidate at session-close pass.

Cascade artefacts

  • Stage-1 ζ-Q14 rename + closure (commits 4998b56 + 928c7e8)
  • arch-state v3.25 → v3.26 (this commit batch)
  • INDEX v2.16 → v2.17 (this commit batch)
  • Architecture-options scorecard v2.14 → v2.15 status note (this commit batch)
  • This memory file (this commit batch)
  • active-work-log + MEMORY.md (this commit batch)

NEXT

ζ-Q15 = t-box layering R2-completeness boundary check per Rich directive 2026-05-01: “alignment-axiom strength or t-box layering… need to be revisited due to us reversing ω.γ Hybrid multi-parent lock”. ζ-Q14 closed alignment-axiom; t-box layering is the second candidate. ζ-Q6 was R2-reframed FIRST (FIRST ζ.2 decision after MQ-001 R2 reversal) BEFORE subsequent χ.γ + Λ.β + Ψ.γ locks. Boundary check question: was ζ-Q6’s R2-reframe complete given subsequent locks, or do χ.γ vi-6+ Hybrid (4-layer Commons stack) + Λ.β multi-anchor SSSOM + Ψ.γ verificationTier annotation create implications that necessitate t-box layering revision? Rich-prepared to reverse ζ-Q6 lock if R2-reframe was incomplete. Likely answer: status quo confirmation (Φ.α’.0); but worth asking with hindsight.

Graph View

Backlinks