mirror of
https://github.com/onestardao/WFGY.git
synced 2026-04-30 20:49:49 +00:00
506 lines
15 KiB
Markdown
506 lines
15 KiB
Markdown
<!--
|
|
AI_NOTE_START
|
|
|
|
Document role:
|
|
This page provides concrete examples for Bridge v1 inside WFGY 4.0 Twin Atlas Engine.
|
|
|
|
What this page is for:
|
|
1. Show how Forward Atlas canonical output should be translated into a Bridge v1 packet.
|
|
2. Make Bridge easier to understand for readers who can read examples faster than raw specifications.
|
|
3. Demonstrate how Bridge preserves route value without granting authorization.
|
|
4. Show both successful examples and failure / reject-style examples.
|
|
|
|
How to use this page:
|
|
1. Read this page after reading Bridge README and Bridge v1 Spec.
|
|
2. Compare the forward routing contract with the Bridge packet side by side.
|
|
3. Use this page when implementing, reviewing, or debugging the Bridge handoff layer.
|
|
4. Use these examples as reference patterns, not as exhaustive runtime law.
|
|
|
|
Important boundary:
|
|
This page explains example mappings for Bridge v1.
|
|
It does not replace the formal contract in bridge-v1-spec.md.
|
|
It also does not mean the inverse side is bypassed.
|
|
All Bridge packets remain advisory-only and still require inverse-side recheck.
|
|
|
|
Recommended reading path:
|
|
1. Twin Atlas
|
|
2. Bridge README
|
|
3. Bridge v1 Spec
|
|
4. This page
|
|
5. Bridge v1 Eval Notes
|
|
6. Killer Demo Spec
|
|
|
|
AI_NOTE_END
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
# 🌉 Bridge v1 Examples
|
|
|
|
> Concrete handoff examples for the advisory-only coupling layer inside WFGY 4.0 Twin Atlas Engine.
|
|
|
|
Bridge can feel abstract if you only read the specification.
|
|
|
|
This page fixes that.
|
|
|
|
The goal here is simple:
|
|
|
|
**show what a Forward Atlas routing contract looks like**
|
|
**show how Bridge v1 translates it into a normalized weak-prior packet**
|
|
**show what must be preserved, and what must never be upgraded**
|
|
|
|
If the spec is the law, this page is the worked example sheet.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🔎 Quick Links
|
|
|
|
| Section | Link |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Twin Atlas Home | [Twin Atlas](../README.md) |
|
|
| Bridge Home | [Bridge README](./README.md) |
|
|
| Bridge v1 Spec | [Bridge v1 Spec](./bridge-v1-spec.md) |
|
|
| Bridge Eval Notes | [Bridge v1 Eval Notes](./bridge-v1-eval-notes.md) |
|
|
| Killer Demo Spec | [Killer Demo Spec](../demos/killer-demo-spec.md) |
|
|
| Forward Atlas | [Problem Map 3.0 Troubleshooting Atlas](../../wfgy-ai-problem-map-troubleshooting-atlas.md) |
|
|
| Inverse Atlas Home | [Inverse Atlas README](../../Inverse_Atlas/README.md) |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🧭 How to read these examples
|
|
|
|
Each example follows the same structure:
|
|
|
|
1. **Case sketch**
|
|
2. **Forward Atlas canonical output**
|
|
3. **Bridge v1 packet**
|
|
4. **What Bridge preserved**
|
|
5. **What Bridge did not do**
|
|
6. **Why this matters**
|
|
|
|
That order is intentional.
|
|
|
|
Bridge is not supposed to be magical.
|
|
It is supposed to be disciplined.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🧩 Example 1 · Thin evidence, F5 vs F6 pressure
|
|
|
|
This is the most important example because it is the one closest to the killer demo path.
|
|
|
|
### Case sketch
|
|
|
|
A workflow keeps failing.
|
|
The user strongly suspects a dangerous boundary or regime issue.
|
|
However, trace visibility is still incomplete.
|
|
|
|
This means:
|
|
|
|
- F6-like language is tempting
|
|
- F5 still has stronger support
|
|
- evidence is not strong enough for node-level certainty
|
|
- the most likely wrong-first-fix is locking F6 too early
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Forward Atlas canonical output
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
primary_family: F5
|
|
secondary_family: F6
|
|
why_primary_not_secondary: Current evidence supports opacity first. Boundary pressure is live, but the failure path is still not visible enough to justify F6 dominance.
|
|
broken_invariant: Failure path visibility is insufficient for lawful boundary-level escalation.
|
|
best_current_fit: family-level
|
|
first_fix_direction: Increase trace visibility and gather disambiguating evidence before control-path hardening.
|
|
misrepair_risk: Prematurely locking F6 and applying boundary-style repair before visibility is established.
|
|
confidence: medium
|
|
evidence_sufficiency: partial
|
|
need_more_evidence: Need higher-fidelity trace evidence to test whether the route is truly F6-like or still opacity-dominant.
|
|
overlay: OBS
|
|
````
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Bridge v1 packet
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
bridge_packet_version: v1
|
|
|
|
packet_status:
|
|
state: ok
|
|
|
|
route_hint:
|
|
primary_route_candidate: F5
|
|
neighboring_route_hint: F6
|
|
route_basis_hint: Current support favors opacity-first interpretation. Boundary pressure remains live but not yet dominant.
|
|
fit_level_hint: family-level
|
|
|
|
repair_hint:
|
|
broken_invariant_candidate: Failure path visibility is insufficient for lawful boundary-level escalation.
|
|
first_repair_candidate: Increase trace visibility and gather disambiguating evidence before hardening.
|
|
misrepair_shadow_seed: Premature F6 lock and early boundary-style repair.
|
|
|
|
confidence_hint:
|
|
route_confidence_hint: medium
|
|
evidence_hint: partial
|
|
|
|
evidence_gap:
|
|
need_more_evidence_hint: Need stronger trace evidence before stronger route commitment.
|
|
|
|
overlay_hint:
|
|
overlay_signal: OBS
|
|
|
|
constraints:
|
|
advisory_only: true
|
|
authorization_granted: false
|
|
requires_inverse_recheck: true
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### ✅ What Bridge preserved
|
|
|
|
* primary route pressure
|
|
* neighboring-route pressure
|
|
* broken invariant signal
|
|
* first repair direction as a **candidate**
|
|
* misrepair shadow
|
|
* partial evidence state
|
|
* family-level fit
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 🚫 What Bridge did not do
|
|
|
|
Bridge did **not**:
|
|
|
|
* say F5 is final
|
|
* erase F6
|
|
* upgrade family-level to node-level
|
|
* turn the repair suggestion into structural repair
|
|
* authorize stronger visible output
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 💡 Why this matters
|
|
|
|
This is the textbook example of why Bridge exists.
|
|
|
|
Without Bridge discipline, systems often do one of two dumb things:
|
|
|
|
* they erase F6 too early and become falsely neat
|
|
* or they jump into F6 too early because the wording sounds dramatic
|
|
|
|
Bridge does neither.
|
|
|
|
It carries the route pressure forward without pretending the route has already earned full authority.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🔁 Example 2 · F3 vs F4 ambiguity under incomplete closure evidence
|
|
|
|
### Case sketch
|
|
|
|
A multi-step workflow appears broken.
|
|
|
|
Some symptoms suggest continuity failure.
|
|
Other symptoms suggest explicit closure failure.
|
|
|
|
The system should not pretend subtype certainty exists yet.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Forward Atlas canonical output
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
primary_family: F4
|
|
secondary_family: F3
|
|
why_primary_not_secondary: Explicit closure break appears slightly stronger than continuity drift, but neighboring continuity pressure remains live.
|
|
broken_invariant: Completion signal is not reliably reaching the expected termination boundary.
|
|
best_current_fit: family-level
|
|
first_fix_direction: Inspect where closure acknowledgement is expected and verify whether the end-state signal is emitted and received.
|
|
misrepair_risk: Treating the case as general continuity drift and patching around sequencing without verifying closure signaling.
|
|
confidence: low
|
|
evidence_sufficiency: partial
|
|
need_more_evidence: Need explicit boundary event evidence to justify stronger closure claims.
|
|
overlay: none
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Bridge v1 packet
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
bridge_packet_version: v1
|
|
|
|
packet_status:
|
|
state: ok
|
|
|
|
route_hint:
|
|
primary_route_candidate: F4
|
|
neighboring_route_hint: F3
|
|
route_basis_hint: Closure failure currently looks slightly stronger, but continuity pressure remains materially live.
|
|
fit_level_hint: family-level
|
|
|
|
repair_hint:
|
|
broken_invariant_candidate: Completion signal is not reliably reaching the expected termination boundary.
|
|
first_repair_candidate: Inspect expected closure signaling path before broader sequence patching.
|
|
misrepair_shadow_seed: Treating the issue as general continuity drift without checking closure signaling.
|
|
|
|
confidence_hint:
|
|
route_confidence_hint: low
|
|
evidence_hint: partial
|
|
|
|
evidence_gap:
|
|
need_more_evidence_hint: Need explicit termination-boundary evidence before stronger closure claims.
|
|
|
|
overlay_hint:
|
|
overlay_signal: none
|
|
|
|
constraints:
|
|
advisory_only: true
|
|
authorization_granted: false
|
|
requires_inverse_recheck: true
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### ✅ What Bridge preserved
|
|
|
|
* closure-first pressure
|
|
* neighboring continuity pressure
|
|
* low confidence
|
|
* partial evidence
|
|
* family-level fit
|
|
* closure-oriented first move
|
|
* misrepair warning
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 🚫 What Bridge did not do
|
|
|
|
Bridge did **not**:
|
|
|
|
* invent a subtype
|
|
* present F4 as fully settled
|
|
* convert the first move into a repair verdict
|
|
* remove ambiguity for cosmetic cleanliness
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 💡 Why this matters
|
|
|
|
This example shows that Bridge is not only about dangerous-looking cases.
|
|
|
|
It is also about ordinary workflow ambiguity.
|
|
|
|
If Bridge quietly upgrades this case to neat certainty, the inverse side gets polluted.
|
|
That would break the entire point of Twin Atlas.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 📚 Example 3 · RAG anchor mismatch with tempting observability drift story
|
|
|
|
### Case sketch
|
|
|
|
A retrieval answer sounds plausible and smooth.
|
|
However, the actual claim anchor is weak.
|
|
|
|
A non-governed system may describe this as a general observability issue, when the real problem is anchor-to-claim coupling weakness.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Forward Atlas canonical output
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
primary_family: F1
|
|
secondary_family: F5
|
|
why_primary_not_secondary: The answer appears semantically fluent, but claim anchoring is weak. Observability drift remains possible, but current evidence favors anchor mismatch first.
|
|
broken_invariant: Claim-to-evidence coupling is not stable enough to justify the answer strength.
|
|
best_current_fit: family-level
|
|
first_fix_direction: Rebind the answer to explicit supporting chunks before discussing broader observability repair.
|
|
misrepair_risk: Treating the issue as general system drift and tuning observability without fixing claim anchoring.
|
|
confidence: medium
|
|
evidence_sufficiency: partial
|
|
need_more_evidence: Need tighter evidence-to-claim inspection for stronger family separation.
|
|
overlay: OBS
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Bridge v1 packet
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
bridge_packet_version: v1
|
|
|
|
packet_status:
|
|
state: ok
|
|
|
|
route_hint:
|
|
primary_route_candidate: F1
|
|
neighboring_route_hint: F5
|
|
route_basis_hint: Current evidence favors anchor mismatch over broad observability drift.
|
|
fit_level_hint: family-level
|
|
|
|
repair_hint:
|
|
broken_invariant_candidate: Claim-to-evidence coupling is too weak for current answer strength.
|
|
first_repair_candidate: Rebind the answer to explicit supporting chunks first.
|
|
misrepair_shadow_seed: Over-tuning observability before restoring anchor stability.
|
|
|
|
confidence_hint:
|
|
route_confidence_hint: medium
|
|
evidence_hint: partial
|
|
|
|
evidence_gap:
|
|
need_more_evidence_hint: Need stronger claim-to-evidence inspection before stronger separation.
|
|
|
|
overlay_hint:
|
|
overlay_signal: OBS
|
|
|
|
constraints:
|
|
advisory_only: true
|
|
authorization_granted: false
|
|
requires_inverse_recheck: true
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### ✅ What Bridge preserved
|
|
|
|
* anchor mismatch as dominant pressure
|
|
* observability as neighboring pressure
|
|
* broken claim-coupling invariant
|
|
* first move aimed at anchor repair
|
|
* misrepair shadow
|
|
* partial evidence
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 🚫 What Bridge did not do
|
|
|
|
Bridge did **not**:
|
|
|
|
* let F5 swallow F1
|
|
* treat semantic fluency as proof
|
|
* escalate from family-level to node-level
|
|
* authorize a stronger claim than the evidence supports
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 💡 Why this matters
|
|
|
|
This is a good example for engineers because it shows Bridge is not only about weird control-path cases.
|
|
|
|
It also matters in ordinary RAG failure analysis.
|
|
|
|
If the handoff layer is sloppy, a polished but weak explanation can easily bully the next layer into the wrong posture.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🛑 Example 4 · Reject case, confidence stronger than evidence
|
|
|
|
This example is here because good examples alone are not enough.
|
|
|
|
Bridge also needs a visible failure mode.
|
|
|
|
### Bad forward packet
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
primary_family: F5
|
|
secondary_family: F6
|
|
why_primary_not_secondary: F5 currently looks more plausible.
|
|
broken_invariant: Failure path visibility is weak.
|
|
best_current_fit: node-level:boundary-path-collapse
|
|
first_fix_direction: Add trace instrumentation first.
|
|
misrepair_risk: Premature F6 lock.
|
|
confidence: high
|
|
evidence_sufficiency: weak
|
|
need_more_evidence: Need more trace detail.
|
|
overlay: OBS
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Why this packet must be rejected
|
|
|
|
It violates multiple rules:
|
|
|
|
* `confidence` is stronger than `evidence_sufficiency`
|
|
* `best_current_fit` is illegally over-specific relative to weak evidence
|
|
* the packet tries to sound more settled than its support allows
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### Correct Bridge response
|
|
|
|
```yaml
|
|
bridge_packet_version: v1
|
|
|
|
packet_status:
|
|
state: bridge_error
|
|
|
|
bridge_error:
|
|
code: invalid_confidence
|
|
reason: confidence exceeds evidence sufficiency and fit level is over-specified relative to support
|
|
action: reject_and_return_to_forward_layer
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
### 💡 Why this matters
|
|
|
|
This example is important because it teaches the right instinct:
|
|
|
|
**Bridge is allowed to reject.**
|
|
**Bridge is not allowed to hallucinate legality.**
|
|
|
|
That is part of what makes it a real coupling layer rather than a decorative formatter.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🧪 Example 5 · Minimal pattern summary
|
|
|
|
If you want the shortest pattern memory, use this table.
|
|
|
|
| Pattern | Forward Atlas says | Bridge keeps | Bridge does not do |
|
|
| ----------------------- | ---------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- |
|
|
| Thin evidence ambiguity | Primary + secondary family | Competing pressure stays visible | Does not erase ambiguity |
|
|
| Broken invariant | Likely structural break region | Keeps invariant candidate | Does not convert to repair verdict |
|
|
| First repair move | Suggested first move | Keeps as candidate | Does not label structural repair |
|
|
| Misrepair risk | Most tempting wrong-first-fix | Keeps shadow visible | Does not drop it for neatness |
|
|
| Weak evidence | Weak or partial support | Preserves weakness honestly | Does not upgrade confidence |
|
|
| Honest fit level | Family-level or unresolved subtype | Preserves fit discipline | Does not jump to node-level |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🧠 What these examples should teach
|
|
|
|
If these examples are doing their job, the reader should walk away with five instincts:
|
|
|
|
1. Bridge is a **translation layer**, not a judge
|
|
2. Bridge preserves **route structure**, not rhetorical confidence
|
|
3. Bridge keeps **ambiguity visible** when ambiguity is still lawful
|
|
4. Bridge keeps **repair as candidate**, not verdict
|
|
5. Bridge may **reject bad packets** instead of pretending everything is fine
|
|
|
|
That is the right mental model.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## 🚀 Suggested next file
|
|
|
|
After this page, the best next read is:
|
|
|
|
[Bridge v1 Eval Notes](./bridge-v1-eval-notes.md)
|
|
|
|
Why that file matters:
|
|
|
|
* this page teaches examples
|
|
* the eval notes teach how to review whether Bridge is behaving correctly
|
|
|
|
Together, those two pages make Bridge feel much more real.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## ✨ One-sentence takeaway
|
|
|
|
> Bridge v1 is strongest when it carries the route forward honestly, keeps ambiguity alive when it is still lawful, and refuses to pretend that a good prior is the same thing as an authorized conclusion.
|