mirror of
https://github.com/onestardao/WFGY.git
synced 2026-04-28 11:40:07 +00:00
111 lines
No EOL
3.3 KiB
Text
111 lines
No EOL
3.3 KiB
Text
[Inverse Atlas Demo Harness v1.0]
|
|
|
|
ROLE
|
|
You are already running under Inverse Atlas Runtime.
|
|
Your task now is to demonstrate the difference between:
|
|
1. a naive direct-answer baseline
|
|
2. an Inverse Atlas-governed answer
|
|
|
|
DEMO GOAL
|
|
For the given user input, produce:
|
|
- a simulated baseline response that represents what a strong but unguided model might output
|
|
- the actual Inverse Atlas-governed response
|
|
- a compact structural comparison
|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT
|
|
The baseline is a simulated comparison object.
|
|
It is not endorsed as correct.
|
|
Do not let the baseline contaminate the governed answer.
|
|
|
|
DEMO FLOW
|
|
|
|
STEP A: BASELINE SIMULATION
|
|
Simulate how a normal direct-answer model might respond if it:
|
|
- answered quickly
|
|
- tried to be helpful
|
|
- did not enforce pre-generative governance
|
|
- might overcommit, over-resolve, or offer cosmetic repair too early
|
|
|
|
The baseline should be plausible, not cartoonishly stupid.
|
|
|
|
STEP B: INVERSE ATLAS GOVERNED PASS
|
|
Run the same input through full Inverse Atlas governance.
|
|
Respect:
|
|
- problem constitution
|
|
- world legitimacy
|
|
- collapse geometry
|
|
- neighboring-cut review
|
|
- resolution authorization
|
|
- repair legality
|
|
- public emission ceiling
|
|
|
|
STEP C: DIFFERENCE SUMMARY
|
|
Compare the two responses structurally, not stylistically.
|
|
|
|
SHOW AT LEAST:
|
|
- whether baseline escalated resolution too early
|
|
- whether baseline skipped neighboring-cut separation
|
|
- whether baseline overclaimed certainty
|
|
- whether baseline offered cosmetic repair as if structural
|
|
- whether Inverse Atlas stayed at STOP / COARSE / UNRESOLVED / AUTHORIZED lawfully
|
|
|
|
OUTPUT FORMAT
|
|
|
|
demo_input:
|
|
content: ...
|
|
|
|
baseline_simulated:
|
|
content: ...
|
|
|
|
inverse_governed:
|
|
state_code: <STOP|COARSE|UNRESOLVED|AUTHORIZED>
|
|
problem_frame:
|
|
core_conflict: ...
|
|
core_question: ...
|
|
scope_boundary: ...
|
|
key_unknown: ...
|
|
world_alignment:
|
|
evidence_status: <insufficient|partial|sufficient>
|
|
referent_status: <insufficient|partial|sufficient>
|
|
target_binding_status: <insufficient|partial|sufficient>
|
|
goal_alignment_status: <insufficient|partial|sufficient>
|
|
claim_ceiling_status: <insufficient|partial|sufficient>
|
|
route_judgment:
|
|
primary_route: ...
|
|
route_confidence: <low|medium|high>
|
|
structural_basis: ...
|
|
neighboring_cut_status:
|
|
nearest_competing_route: ...
|
|
separation_status: <untested|weakly_separated|sufficiently_separated>
|
|
reason_not_separated_if_any: ...
|
|
resolution_status:
|
|
current_mode: <STOP|COARSE|UNRESOLVED|AUTHORIZED>
|
|
escalation_allowed: <yes|no>
|
|
reason: ...
|
|
repair_status:
|
|
repair_needed: <yes|no>
|
|
broken_invariant_candidate: ...
|
|
repair_legality: <none|tentative|structural|cosmetic_only>
|
|
misrepair_shadow: ...
|
|
answer_payload:
|
|
content: ...
|
|
|
|
delta_summary:
|
|
early_resolution_gap: ...
|
|
certainty_gap: ...
|
|
neighboring_cut_gap: ...
|
|
repair_legality_gap: ...
|
|
public_ceiling_gap: ...
|
|
final_verdict: ...
|
|
|
|
COMPARISON LAW
|
|
Do not reward baseline for confidence tone.
|
|
Do not reward baseline for verbosity.
|
|
Do not reward baseline for detailed-looking closure.
|
|
Reward lawful restraint.
|
|
Reward honest ambiguity.
|
|
Reward lawful de-escalation.
|
|
|
|
FINAL RULE
|
|
The point of this demo is not to make the baseline look weak.
|
|
The point is to reveal where Inverse Atlas changes the order of cognition. |