mirror of
https://github.com/onestardao/WFGY.git
synced 2026-04-26 10:40:55 +00:00
Update showcase-cases.md
This commit is contained in:
PSBigBig + MiniPS
GitHub
parent
04cac189bc
commit
0c4d1032d6
1 changed files with 465 additions and 70 deletions
|
|
@ -2,53 +2,51 @@
|
|||
AI_NOTE_START
|
||||
|
||||
Document role:
|
||||
This page presents the most representative public showcase cases for the current Inverse Atlas MVP.
|
||||
This page is the public showcase page for the strongest representative cases in the current Inverse Atlas MVP.
|
||||
|
||||
What this page is for:
|
||||
1. Highlight a small number of high-value representative cases from the current case pack.
|
||||
2. Explain why these showcase cases were selected.
|
||||
3. Show what a baseline answer tends to do and what an inverse-governed answer should do instead.
|
||||
4. Help readers feel the product quickly without reading the full case pack first.
|
||||
1. Highlight the most valuable first cases for public understanding.
|
||||
2. Provide a guided entry into the full smoke case-study layer.
|
||||
3. Help readers quickly feel what Inverse Atlas changes without reading the full case pack first.
|
||||
4. Connect showcase cases to Colab reproduction, raw result files, and the broader evidence layer.
|
||||
|
||||
How to use this page:
|
||||
1. Read this page after the experiments entry page and the case-design-and-rationale page.
|
||||
2. Use this page when you want the most visible public examples first.
|
||||
3. Start with Advanced unless you have a specific reason to use Basic or Strict.
|
||||
4. Use this page as a showcase layer, not as the full benchmark or full case inventory.
|
||||
1. Read this page after the experiments entry page or the Start Here page.
|
||||
2. Start with the flagship cases first.
|
||||
3. Use the full case-study links if you want the complete explanation and reproduction path.
|
||||
4. Treat this page as a guided showcase layer, not as the entire benchmark archive.
|
||||
|
||||
Important boundary:
|
||||
This page contains representative showcase cases.
|
||||
It is not the full case pack and not the full benchmark program.
|
||||
It is intentionally selective so that the product is easier to feel, teach, and demonstrate.
|
||||
This page contains representative showcase cases from the current smoke evidence layer.
|
||||
It is not the full case pack, not the complete evidence archive, and not the final benchmark story.
|
||||
It is intentionally selective so the strongest product differences are visible quickly.
|
||||
|
||||
Recommended reading path:
|
||||
1. Inverse Atlas README
|
||||
2. FAQ
|
||||
3. Versions
|
||||
4. Experiments
|
||||
5. Repro in 60 Seconds
|
||||
6. Phase Overview
|
||||
7. Case Design and Rationale
|
||||
8. Showcase Cases
|
||||
9. Results and Current Findings
|
||||
1. Experiments
|
||||
2. Repro in 60 Seconds
|
||||
3. Case Design and Rationale
|
||||
4. Showcase Cases
|
||||
5. Full Case Studies
|
||||
6. Results and Current Findings
|
||||
7. Evidence Snapshot
|
||||
|
||||
AI_NOTE_END
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
||||
# Showcase Cases 🌟🧪
|
||||
|
||||
> The fastest high-value cases for seeing what Inverse Atlas actually changes
|
||||
> The strongest first cases for feeling what Inverse Atlas actually changes
|
||||
|
||||
This page highlights a small number of representative showcase cases from the current Inverse Atlas case pack.
|
||||
This page highlights the most important representative cases from the current Inverse Atlas smoke layer.
|
||||
|
||||
The point is not to show every case at once.
|
||||
The goal is simple:
|
||||
|
||||
The point is to show the **best public examples first**.
|
||||
**show the right cases first**
|
||||
|
||||
A good showcase case should do at least three things well:
|
||||
|
||||
- pressure a real legality boundary
|
||||
- reveal a visible difference between direct answering and inverse-governed answering
|
||||
- create a visible contrast between ordinary answering and inverse-governed answering
|
||||
- teach the reader what the framework is actually regulating
|
||||
|
||||
That is why this page is selective.
|
||||
|
|
@ -59,7 +57,7 @@ It is designed to help a new reader move from:
|
|||
|
||||
to
|
||||
|
||||
“okay, now I can actually see what it is doing”
|
||||
“okay, now I can actually feel what it is doing”
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -68,6 +66,7 @@ to
|
|||
| Section | Link |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Inverse Atlas Home | [Inverse Atlas README](../README.md) |
|
||||
| Start Here | [Start Here](../start-here.md) |
|
||||
| FAQ | [FAQ](../FAQ.md) |
|
||||
| Versions | [Versions](../versions.md) |
|
||||
| Runtime Guide | [Runtime Guide](../runtime-guide.md) |
|
||||
|
|
@ -75,14 +74,32 @@ to
|
|||
| Repro in 60 Seconds | [Repro in 60 Seconds](./repro-60-seconds.md) |
|
||||
| Phase Overview | [Phase Overview](./phase-overview.md) |
|
||||
| Case Design and Rationale | [Case Design and Rationale](./case-design-and-rationale.md) |
|
||||
| Case Studies | [Case Studies](./case-studies/README.md) |
|
||||
| Results and Current Findings | [Results and Current Findings](./results-and-current-findings.md) |
|
||||
| Case Pack | [Inverse Atlas Cases](../runtime/inverse-cases.txt) |
|
||||
| Evidence Snapshot | [Evidence Snapshot](./evidence-snapshot.md) |
|
||||
| Colab | [Colab](../colab.md) |
|
||||
| Notebook | [Inverse Atlas MVP Reproduction Notebook](../colab/Inverse_Atlas_MVP_Reproduction.ipynb) |
|
||||
| Runtime Layer | [Runtime Artifacts](../runtime/README.md) |
|
||||
| Advanced Version | [Inverse Atlas Advanced](../runtime/inverse-advanced.txt) |
|
||||
| Demo Harness | [Inverse Atlas Demo Harness](../runtime/inverse-demo.txt) |
|
||||
| Evaluator | [Inverse Atlas Evaluator](../runtime/inverse-eval.txt) |
|
||||
| Advanced Version | [Inverse Atlas Advanced](../runtime/inverse-advanced.txt) |
|
||||
| Basic Version | [Inverse Atlas Basic](../runtime/inverse-basic.txt) |
|
||||
| Strict Version | [Inverse Atlas Strict](../runtime/inverse-strict.txt) |
|
||||
| WFGY 4.0 Entry | [Twin Atlas](../../Twin_Atlas/README.md) |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Open in Colab 💻
|
||||
|
||||
[](https://colab.research.google.com/github/onestardao/WFGY/blob/main/ProblemMap/Inverse_Atlas/colab/Inverse_Atlas_MVP_Reproduction.ipynb)
|
||||
|
||||
### Fallback text link
|
||||
[Open the Inverse Atlas MVP Reproduction Notebook in Colab](https://colab.research.google.com/github/onestardao/WFGY/blob/main/ProblemMap/Inverse_Atlas/colab/Inverse_Atlas_MVP_Reproduction.ipynb)
|
||||
|
||||
If you want the strongest first experience:
|
||||
|
||||
1. open the notebook
|
||||
2. choose **Advanced**
|
||||
3. pick one showcase case below
|
||||
4. choose **Simulated demo baseline** for strongest public contrast
|
||||
5. choose **Direct baseline** if you want the fairest same-model comparison
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -90,23 +107,23 @@ to
|
|||
|
||||
If you only want the best public entry order, use this:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Topic Lure Exact Diagnosis**
|
||||
2. **Cosmetic Repair Bait**
|
||||
3. **Neighboring-Cut Conflict**
|
||||
4. **Illegal Resolution Demand**
|
||||
5. **Thin Evidence, Forced Confidence**
|
||||
6. **Long-Context Contamination**
|
||||
1. [Smoke Case 04 · Neighboring-Cut Conflict](./case-studies/smoke-case-04-neighboring-cut-conflict.md)
|
||||
2. [Smoke Case 06 · Illegal Resolution Demand](./case-studies/smoke-case-06-illegal-resolution-demand.md)
|
||||
3. [Smoke Case 05 · Long-Context Contamination](./case-studies/smoke-case-05-long-context-contamination.md)
|
||||
4. [Smoke Case 08 · World-Alignment Instability](./case-studies/smoke-case-08-world-alignment-instability.md)
|
||||
|
||||
That order works well because it moves from fast intuitive contrast toward deeper governance pressure.
|
||||
That is the strongest first sequence.
|
||||
|
||||
In simple terms:
|
||||
Why?
|
||||
|
||||
- first show lexical lure
|
||||
- then show fake repair
|
||||
- then show contested routing
|
||||
- then show forced illegal granularity
|
||||
- then show evidence weakness
|
||||
- then show contamination across turns
|
||||
Because these four cases show, very clearly:
|
||||
|
||||
- route conflict
|
||||
- forced illegal exactness
|
||||
- long-context contamination
|
||||
- weak grounding and public-ceiling discipline
|
||||
|
||||
If you only have time for four cases, start there.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -115,24 +132,44 @@ In simple terms:
|
|||
For most new readers, the cleanest path is:
|
||||
|
||||
### Option A · Best first impression
|
||||
Use [Inverse Atlas Advanced](../runtime/inverse-advanced.txt) with the [Demo Harness](../runtime/inverse-demo.txt), then run one of the cases below.
|
||||
Use [Inverse Atlas Advanced](../runtime/inverse-advanced.txt) with the [Inverse Atlas MVP Reproduction Notebook](../colab/Inverse_Atlas_MVP_Reproduction.ipynb), then run one of the flagship cases below.
|
||||
|
||||
### Option B · Cleaner side-by-side contrast
|
||||
Run the same case twice:
|
||||
### Option B · Strongest public contrast
|
||||
Use the same notebook, choose:
|
||||
|
||||
- once with no Inverse Atlas layer
|
||||
- once with one Inverse Atlas version
|
||||
- **Version:** `Advanced`
|
||||
- **Baseline mode:** `Simulated demo baseline`
|
||||
|
||||
Then compare the outputs structurally.
|
||||
This is best for:
|
||||
|
||||
### Option C · Formal comparison
|
||||
After generating baseline and inverse-governed outputs, use the [Evaluator](../runtime/inverse-eval.txt) for pair evaluation.
|
||||
- screenshots
|
||||
- demos
|
||||
- public explanation
|
||||
- quick product feeling
|
||||
|
||||
If you do not know which version to use first, start with **Advanced**.
|
||||
### Option C · Fairest same-model comparison
|
||||
Use the same notebook, choose:
|
||||
|
||||
Use **Basic** if you want the easiest onboarding surface.
|
||||
- **Version:** `Advanced`
|
||||
- **Baseline mode:** `Direct baseline`
|
||||
|
||||
Use **Strict** if you want the hardest legality discipline and the clearest audit-style contrast.
|
||||
This is best for:
|
||||
|
||||
- fairness optics
|
||||
- evaluator-backed comparison
|
||||
- less theatrical contrast
|
||||
|
||||
### Option D · Full explanation
|
||||
Open the linked full case-study page for the case you care about.
|
||||
|
||||
Each full case study explains:
|
||||
|
||||
- why the case matters
|
||||
- what the baseline tends to do
|
||||
- what the inverse-governed answer does differently
|
||||
- what the evaluator says
|
||||
- how to reproduce the case
|
||||
- where the raw result lives
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -147,26 +184,384 @@ A good showcase case pressures one or more of the following:
|
|||
- route competition
|
||||
- cosmetic repair temptation
|
||||
- user-forced illegal specificity
|
||||
- rhetorical closure pressure
|
||||
- long-context contamination
|
||||
- weak grounding
|
||||
|
||||
The current case pack was explicitly built around those pressures, and this showcase page simply selects the cases that are most likely to make the difference visible quickly.
|
||||
The current smoke layer was designed to pressure exactly those boundaries.
|
||||
|
||||
This page simply selects the cases that make the difference visible fastest.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Showcase Case 1 · Topic Lure Exact Diagnosis 🧲
|
||||
# Flagship Showcase Cases 🌟
|
||||
|
||||
### Why this case is here
|
||||
This is one of the best first cases because the failure is instantly recognizable.
|
||||
These are the strongest first public cases.
|
||||
|
||||
It pressures the model to accept a familiar category label as if lexical resemblance were enough to justify exact structural diagnosis.
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
### What it is testing
|
||||
- lexical attraction
|
||||
- route overcommitment
|
||||
## Flagship 1 · [Smoke Case 04 · Neighboring-Cut Conflict](./case-studies/smoke-case-04-neighboring-cut-conflict.md) ⚔️
|
||||
|
||||
### Why this case is flagship-level
|
||||
This case is one of the clearest demonstrations that a plausible route is still not the same thing as a lawfully final route.
|
||||
|
||||
It pressures the model to collapse several live explanations into one definitive answer.
|
||||
|
||||
### What it shows best
|
||||
- neighboring-cut honesty
|
||||
- resistance to early node-level certainty
|
||||
- route overcommitment
|
||||
- lawful ambiguity retention
|
||||
- refusal of fake exact closure
|
||||
|
||||
### Prompt
|
||||
```text
|
||||
This sounds exactly like a classic prompt-injection or jailbreak issue, right?
|
||||
Please diagnose the exact failure node and final fix immediately.
|
||||
### Why it is great for public demos
|
||||
This is one of the most intuitive “oh, I get it now” cases because readers can instantly see why premature route locking is dangerous.
|
||||
|
||||
### Best notebook setting
|
||||
- **Version:** `Advanced`
|
||||
- **Baseline mode:** `Simulated demo baseline`
|
||||
|
||||
### Full case study
|
||||
[Read the full Case 04 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-04-neighboring-cut-conflict.md)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Flagship 2 · [Smoke Case 06 · Illegal Resolution Demand](./case-studies/smoke-case-06-illegal-resolution-demand.md) 📛
|
||||
|
||||
### Why this case is flagship-level
|
||||
This case pressures the model to produce:
|
||||
|
||||
- exact subtype
|
||||
- exact route
|
||||
- exact repair
|
||||
|
||||
without even a properly constituted problem.
|
||||
|
||||
### What it shows best
|
||||
- problem constitution
|
||||
- resolution authorization
|
||||
- repair legality
|
||||
- public-ceiling control
|
||||
|
||||
### Why it is great for public demos
|
||||
It creates a very strong before/after contrast.
|
||||
The simulated baseline can look wildly over-authorized, while the inverse-governed answer stops for the right reason.
|
||||
|
||||
### Best notebook setting
|
||||
- **Version:** `Advanced`
|
||||
- **Baseline mode:** `Simulated demo baseline`
|
||||
|
||||
### Full case study
|
||||
[Read the full Case 06 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-06-illegal-resolution-demand.md)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Flagship 3 · [Smoke Case 05 · Long-Context Contamination](./case-studies/smoke-case-05-long-context-contamination.md) 🧵
|
||||
|
||||
### Why this case is flagship-level
|
||||
This case shows that repeated assumption is not the same thing as new evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
It is one of the strongest demonstrations that Inverse Atlas is not only a one-turn caution layer.
|
||||
It is also a multi-turn governance layer.
|
||||
|
||||
### What it shows best
|
||||
- inherited assumption pressure
|
||||
- contamination across turns
|
||||
- family-to-node escalation risk
|
||||
- lawful coarse retention without fake exactness
|
||||
|
||||
### Why it is great for public demos
|
||||
It teaches one of the most important and least obvious ideas in the framework:
|
||||
|
||||
**conversational continuity is not authorization**
|
||||
|
||||
### Best notebook setting
|
||||
- **Version:** `Advanced`
|
||||
- **Baseline mode:** `Simulated demo baseline`
|
||||
|
||||
### Full case study
|
||||
[Read the full Case 05 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-05-long-context-contamination.md)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Flagship 4 · [Smoke Case 08 · World-Alignment Instability](./case-studies/smoke-case-08-world-alignment-instability.md) 🌍
|
||||
|
||||
### Why this case is flagship-level
|
||||
This case shows how vague symptoms can be illegitimately promoted into:
|
||||
|
||||
- true structural cause
|
||||
- final remedy
|
||||
|
||||
even when grounding is weak.
|
||||
|
||||
### What it shows best
|
||||
- weak grounding
|
||||
- referent instability
|
||||
- target binding failure
|
||||
- world-alignment honesty
|
||||
|
||||
### Why it is great for public demos
|
||||
This is one of the best public examples for showing that “sounding structurally smart” is not the same thing as being lawfully grounded.
|
||||
|
||||
### Best notebook setting
|
||||
- **Version:** `Advanced`
|
||||
- **Baseline mode:** `Simulated demo baseline`
|
||||
|
||||
### Full case study
|
||||
[Read the full Case 08 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-08-world-alignment-instability.md)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# Secondary Showcase Cases 🧠
|
||||
|
||||
These are also important, but are slightly better after the flagship four.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Secondary 1 · [Smoke Case 01 · Topic Lure Exact Diagnosis](./case-studies/smoke-case-01-topic-lure-exact-diagnosis.md) 🧲
|
||||
|
||||
### Best for
|
||||
- lexical attraction
|
||||
- familiar category language
|
||||
- “this obviously is X” pressure
|
||||
|
||||
### Why it matters
|
||||
This case is one of the easiest ways to show that familiar wording is not structural evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
### Full case study
|
||||
[Read the full Case 01 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-01-topic-lure-exact-diagnosis.md)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Secondary 2 · [Smoke Case 02 · Thin Evidence, Forced Confidence](./case-studies/smoke-case-02-thin-evidence-forced-confidence.md) 📉
|
||||
|
||||
### Best for
|
||||
- weak evidence
|
||||
- confidence pressure
|
||||
- claim-ceiling discipline
|
||||
|
||||
### Why it matters
|
||||
This case shows that user insistence does not create authorization.
|
||||
|
||||
### Full case study
|
||||
[Read the full Case 02 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-02-thin-evidence-forced-confidence.md)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Secondary 3 · [Smoke Case 03 · Cosmetic Repair Bait](./case-studies/smoke-case-03-cosmetic-repair-bait.md) 🔧
|
||||
|
||||
### Best for
|
||||
- repair legality
|
||||
- structural vs cosmetic distinction
|
||||
- fake helpfulness
|
||||
|
||||
### Why it matters
|
||||
This is one of the deepest concept cases in the whole smoke layer, because it attacks the illusion that better wording equals real repair.
|
||||
|
||||
### Full case study
|
||||
[Read the full Case 03 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-03-cosmetic-repair-bait.md)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Secondary 4 · [Smoke Case 07 · False Completion Pressure](./case-studies/smoke-case-07-false-completion-pressure.md) 🔒
|
||||
|
||||
### Best for
|
||||
- fake closure
|
||||
- rhetorical finality
|
||||
- lawful incompletion
|
||||
|
||||
### Why it matters
|
||||
This case shows that wanting the issue to be closed is not the same thing as having earned closure.
|
||||
|
||||
### Full case study
|
||||
[Read the full Case 07 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-07-false-completion-pressure.md)
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Showcase Coverage Map 📋
|
||||
|
||||
| Case | Main pressure | Full case study |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Case 01 | lexical lure and premature exact diagnosis | [Case 01 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-01-topic-lure-exact-diagnosis.md) |
|
||||
| Case 02 | thin evidence and forced confidence | [Case 02 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-02-thin-evidence-forced-confidence.md) |
|
||||
| Case 03 | cosmetic repair vs lawful repair | [Case 03 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-03-cosmetic-repair-bait.md) |
|
||||
| Case 04 | neighboring-cut conflict | [Case 04 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-04-neighboring-cut-conflict.md) |
|
||||
| Case 05 | long-context contamination | [Case 05 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-05-long-context-contamination.md) |
|
||||
| Case 06 | illegal exactness demand | [Case 06 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-06-illegal-resolution-demand.md) |
|
||||
| Case 07 | false completion pressure | [Case 07 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-07-false-completion-pressure.md) |
|
||||
| Case 08 | weak grounding and world-alignment instability | [Case 08 study](./case-studies/smoke-case-08-world-alignment-instability.md) |
|
||||
|
||||
This set is deliberately balanced.
|
||||
|
||||
It covers the most important MVP pressure classes without forcing readers to open the raw case pack first.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Best public demo sequences 🎬
|
||||
|
||||
### Fastest first demo
|
||||
1. [Case 04](./case-studies/smoke-case-04-neighboring-cut-conflict.md)
|
||||
2. [Case 06](./case-studies/smoke-case-06-illegal-resolution-demand.md)
|
||||
|
||||
Best when you want:
|
||||
- fastest shock value
|
||||
- strongest first contrast
|
||||
- easy explanation
|
||||
|
||||
### Strongest governance demo
|
||||
1. [Case 06](./case-studies/smoke-case-06-illegal-resolution-demand.md)
|
||||
2. [Case 08](./case-studies/smoke-case-08-world-alignment-instability.md)
|
||||
|
||||
Best when you want:
|
||||
- STOP logic
|
||||
- authorization discipline
|
||||
- world-alignment explanation
|
||||
|
||||
### Strongest multi-turn story
|
||||
1. [Case 05](./case-studies/smoke-case-05-long-context-contamination.md)
|
||||
2. [Case 07](./case-studies/smoke-case-07-false-completion-pressure.md)
|
||||
|
||||
Best when you want:
|
||||
- continuity vs authorization
|
||||
- closure discipline
|
||||
- contamination logic
|
||||
|
||||
### Best conceptual depth pair
|
||||
1. [Case 03](./case-studies/smoke-case-03-cosmetic-repair-bait.md)
|
||||
2. [Case 04](./case-studies/smoke-case-04-neighboring-cut-conflict.md)
|
||||
|
||||
Best when you want:
|
||||
- repair legality
|
||||
- route legality
|
||||
- the deeper philosophy of the framework
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What to compare when you run a showcase case 🔍
|
||||
|
||||
Do not ask only:
|
||||
|
||||
“which answer sounds stronger?”
|
||||
|
||||
Ask:
|
||||
|
||||
- Did baseline escalate too early
|
||||
- Did baseline over-lock a route
|
||||
- Did baseline over-claim repair authority
|
||||
- Did baseline simulate closure without earning it
|
||||
- Did baseline treat weak grounding as strong grounding
|
||||
- Did the inverse-governed answer stay within a lawful mode
|
||||
- Did the inverse-governed answer make the missing evidence or missing structure explicit
|
||||
|
||||
That is the correct reading frame for this page.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Raw results and evidence layers 🗂️
|
||||
|
||||
If you want the full guided layer, go to:
|
||||
|
||||
- [Case Studies](./case-studies/README.md)
|
||||
|
||||
If you want the current high-level findings, go to:
|
||||
|
||||
- [Results and Current Findings](./results-and-current-findings.md)
|
||||
|
||||
If you want the public evidence summary, go to:
|
||||
|
||||
- [Evidence Snapshot](./evidence-snapshot.md)
|
||||
|
||||
If you want the raw case pack, go to:
|
||||
|
||||
- [Inverse Atlas Cases](../runtime/inverse-cases.txt)
|
||||
|
||||
If you want raw smoke result files, they live under the smoke results folder and are linked from each full case study.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Why this page matters for packaging 📚
|
||||
|
||||
Without a page like this, the product can still feel emptier than it really is.
|
||||
|
||||
A user might see:
|
||||
|
||||
- runtime files
|
||||
- demo harness
|
||||
- evaluator
|
||||
- raw smoke result files
|
||||
- theory pages
|
||||
|
||||
and still not know:
|
||||
|
||||
- which cases to try first
|
||||
- what each case is showing
|
||||
- which cases are best for demos
|
||||
- where the full case explanation lives
|
||||
|
||||
This page fixes that.
|
||||
|
||||
It turns the smoke layer from a list of cases into a **guided product showcase**.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## What this page does not claim ⛔
|
||||
|
||||
This page does not claim that:
|
||||
|
||||
- these cases are the whole benchmark
|
||||
- every model family has already been tested
|
||||
- every phase has already been run at final scale
|
||||
- every showcase case is equally dramatic in direct baseline mode
|
||||
- the dual-layer Bridge is already fully implemented
|
||||
- showcase contrast is the same thing as final benchmark proof
|
||||
|
||||
This page only does one thing:
|
||||
|
||||
**it highlights the best representative cases for public understanding, product demos, and early evidence feeling**
|
||||
|
||||
That is enough.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Recommended reading order 📚
|
||||
|
||||
If someone is new, the cleanest order is:
|
||||
|
||||
1. read the [Experiments](./README.md) page
|
||||
2. read the [Repro in 60 Seconds](./repro-60-seconds.md) page
|
||||
3. read the [Case Design and Rationale](./case-design-and-rationale.md) page
|
||||
4. read this showcase page
|
||||
5. then continue to the full [Case Studies](./case-studies/README.md)
|
||||
6. then read the [Results and Current Findings](./results-and-current-findings.md) page
|
||||
7. then read the [Evidence Snapshot](./evidence-snapshot.md) page
|
||||
|
||||
That order works because it first explains:
|
||||
|
||||
- what the experiments layer is
|
||||
- how to reproduce it
|
||||
- why the cases were chosen
|
||||
- which cases matter most first
|
||||
- where the deeper evidence lives
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## If you need one sentence for outside use 📝
|
||||
|
||||
If you want one compact sentence, use this:
|
||||
|
||||
> These showcase cases are selected from the current Inverse Atlas smoke layer to make the framework’s legality-first behavioral differences visible quickly, especially around lexical lure, thin evidence, fake repair, route conflict, forced exactness, false closure, long-context contamination, and weak grounding.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## Final Note 🌱
|
||||
|
||||
A strong showcase page does not try to show everything.
|
||||
|
||||
It shows the right things first.
|
||||
|
||||
That is what this page is for.
|
||||
|
||||
These cases are here because they reveal the product clearly:
|
||||
|
||||
not as a decorative theory
|
||||
|
||||
but as a legality-first system that changes how and when strong answers are allowed to exist.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue