From 5e117bee579c577eed95c40e909a250551aa1fa0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: PSBigBig + MiniPS Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2026 17:49:41 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] Create replay_outputs.json --- .../replay_outputs.json | 135 ++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 135 insertions(+) create mode 100644 ProblemMap/Atlas/Fixes/official/demos/demo-f7-container-fidelity/replay_outputs.json diff --git a/ProblemMap/Atlas/Fixes/official/demos/demo-f7-container-fidelity/replay_outputs.json b/ProblemMap/Atlas/Fixes/official/demos/demo-f7-container-fidelity/replay_outputs.json new file mode 100644 index 00000000..0d610023 --- /dev/null +++ b/ProblemMap/Atlas/Fixes/official/demos/demo-f7-container-fidelity/replay_outputs.json @@ -0,0 +1,135 @@ +{ + "demo_id": "demo_f7_container_fidelity", + "demo_version": "v1", + "case_id": "f7_container_case_001", + "replay_mode": "official_static_replay", + "summary": { + "baseline_outcome": "The content is partially correct, but the output shell is too weak to preserve the required structure, so the result becomes unstable as a carrier of the task.", + "atlas_route": { + "primary_family": "F7", + "secondary_family": "F2", + "best_current_fit": "F7_N01_B Formal Container Adequacy Failure", + "broken_invariant": "representation_container_fidelity_broken" + }, + "first_repair_move": [ + "descriptor_fidelity_audit", + "formal_adequacy_validation", + "container_tightening", + "structure_preservation_check", + "reassess_reasoning_after_container_repair" + ], + "final_outcome": "After the descriptor and formal container are tightened, the answer becomes structurally trustworthy enough to carry the task requirements." + }, + "baseline_snapshot": { + "task_name": "structured_release_note_extraction", + "user_question": "Return the answer as a strict JSON object. Which product tier includes Semantic Refraction and Tension Field?", + "baseline_output": "The answer is probably Pro. {\"tier_guess\":\"Pro\",\"features\":\"Semantic Refraction, Tension Field\"}", + "container_state": "weak_or_underconstrained", + "why_this_is_bad": [ + "The output contains extra prose outside the intended object.", + "Required keys are missing or renamed.", + "The features field collapses an array requirement into a single string.", + "The answer may be semantically near-correct, but the structure carrier fails to preserve the required form." + ] + }, + "route_replay": { + "why_primary_f7": "The first failure is not inferential progression inside a stable shell. The first failure is that the shell itself is too weak to preserve the required structure.", + "why_not_primary_f2": "The output does not first demonstrate a stable container with a bad reasoning path. It demonstrates a leaking or underspecified formal carrier.", + "teaching_line": "Some reasoning-looking failures are container-first. If the shell is weak, repair the shell first." + }, + "repair_replay": { + "step_1_descriptor_fidelity_audit": { + "action": "Compare the intended structure against the actual prompt shell and output form.", + "result": "The baseline descriptor is shown to be too weak to enforce the required distinctions and field boundaries." + }, + "step_2_formal_adequacy_validation": { + "action": "Check whether the required object structure is explicit enough to carry the task.", + "result": "The current carrier is shown to be inadequate because key names, output boundaries, and array constraints are not reliably preserved." + }, + "step_3_container_tightening": { + "action": "Tighten the shell by specifying the required keys, forbidding extra prose, and enforcing exact structural constraints.", + "result": "The system now has a stronger formal container for the same task." + }, + "step_4_structure_preservation_check": { + "action": "Re-evaluate the output under the tightened container.", + "result": "The returned structure now remains inside a valid JSON object with the expected field boundaries." + }, + "step_5_reassess_reasoning_after_container_repair": { + "action": "Only after the container holds, inspect whether any remaining issue is truly reasoning pressure.", + "result": "The main instability is resolved at the container layer before deeper progression concerns need to be invoked." + } + }, + "improved_container_snapshot": { + "tightened_descriptor": { + "format": "json_object", + "required_keys": [ + "tier", + "features_requested", + "evidence_status", + "final_answer" + ], + "forbidden_patterns": [ + "extra_prose_outside_object", + "missing_required_keys", + "features_as_single_string" + ] + }, + "improved_output": { + "tier": "Pro", + "features_requested": [ + "Semantic Refraction", + "Tension Field" + ], + "evidence_status": "directly_supported_by_source_note", + "final_answer": "Pro" + }, + "new_container_value": [ + "The output now remains inside the required object boundary.", + "The required keys are preserved with stable names.", + "The feature list is now carried in the intended array form.", + "The task becomes structurally trustworthy enough to support later interpretation." + ] + }, + "before_after_comparison": { + "before": { + "output_state": "partly_correct_content_inside_broken_shell", + "container_state": "leaky_and_underconstrained", + "repair_state": "unrepaired", + "operator_position": "may_blame_reasoning_without_seeing_that_the_form_is_failing_first" + }, + "after": { + "output_state": "structured_answer_inside_valid_shell", + "container_state": "tightened_and_task_adequate", + "repair_state": "container_repaired", + "operator_position": "can_now_treat_remaining_issues_as_possible_downstream_reasoning_pressure_only_after_the_shell_holds" + }, + "what_changed": [ + "The first improvement is not deeper reasoning text. The first improvement is that the answer now lives inside a reliable structure carrier.", + "The operator moves from seeing a messy answer to seeing that the shell itself was the first failure point.", + "The repaired state becomes suitable for later reasoning evaluation because the carrier no longer leaks." + ] + }, + "visible_lesson": { + "what_users_should_notice": [ + "The baseline output is not pure nonsense. It contains useful content inside a broken shell.", + "Atlas routing changes the first repair move from reasoning pressure to container repair.", + "After the shell is repaired, the same task becomes much more stable and auditable." + ], + "core_message": "If the box carrying the structure is weak, repair the box first." + }, + "optional_wfgy_escalation": { + "escalation_needed": false, + "when_to_escalate": [ + "If container tightening still leaves nested structural instability.", + "If multiple representational regimes need to be compared experimentally.", + "If the case still fails after formal adequacy is restored and deeper progression pressure remains." + ], + "handoff_note": "Use WFGY 3.0 only after route-first diagnosis and first container repair have already made the task structurally stable enough to escalate responsibly." + }, + "review_status": { + "replay_clarity": "ready", + "route_alignment": "ready", + "repair_alignment": "ready", + "notebook_dependency": "not_required_for_understanding" + } +}