Development record
The decision-adapter intent treats embark's lesson ranking as a judgement the host answers by default; the embark page ranks lessons by term overlap, with no judgement in that step.
The decision-adapter intent treats embark's lesson ranking as a judgement the host answers by default; the embark page ranks lessons by term overlap, with no judgement in that step.
A premise contradiction (severity nitpick) found by the cross-document consistency pass.
- End A:
.abcd/development/intents/planned/itd-2609221009495079-abcd-s-typed-judgements-can-run-through.md:28— "the docs lint's present-tense advisory, embark's lesson ranking" - End B:
.abcd/development/brief/04-surfaces/03-embark.md:59— "ranked by term overlap against the new voyage's brief"
itd-2609221009495079's interface is (state, typed question) to (value, probability), and by default the host's own judgement answers it. Embark's lesson ranking is among the judgement types it can be configured for. The embark page says the lessons sub-verb ranks every retrospective lesson by term overlap against the new voyage's brief and writes nothing. That ranking is a deterministic computation, not a host judgement, so the shadow lab has no host answer to pair with the adapter's, and turning the type on would replace a computation rather than a judgement.
Evidence: .abcd/work/reviews/2026-10-26-consistency/00-summary.md, finding 359.
Grounds
- pursued: the host's scores give the adapter's a like-for-like answer to pair; shown wrong if shadow pairs for embark-lesson-ranking cannot be harvested beside the host's
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2610262033055327 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | resolved |
| severity | nitpick |
.abcd/work/issues/resolved/iss-2610262033055327-the-decision-adapter-intent-treats.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
References1
- itd-2609221009495079abcd's typed judgements can run through a decision adapter, measured in a lab before it decides anythingrelated
mentions2
- dcn-26103005230059472026-10-30 — Decided by the technical facilitator on delegation (the product thinker's ruling of 2026-10-29 that embark's lesson ranking stays in the decision adapter intent as a real judgement; iss-2610262033055327 named that it has no host answer to pair), how embark's lesson ranking becomes a judgement, for step 2 of spc-2609221011151661 to build. (a) The judgement is one score question per lesson, on a scale of 0 to 4: how far does this lesson apply to the new voyage as its brief frames it. Its state is the brief's framing (bounded to fit the window) and the one lesson. A choose question over the lessons is not used, because a lesson is often longer than an option may be and the option set would grow with the lifeboat. (b) The host answers it: embark lessons lists each lesson's question in its result, the agent running the embark page scores them, and passes the scores back with a scores file; the lessons are then ranked by those scores, term overlap breaking ties. Without a scores file the result is today's term-overlap order, still named a heuristic, so no caller breaks. (c) The type routes like the drain's judgement: in shadow the adapter scores each lesson beside the host's answer and each pair is recorded in the newest lab home; turned on (only from the person's own machine file) the adapter's scores rank the lessons and no host scores are asked for; an adapter that cannot answer leaves the host's request standing with a fallback receipt. (d) With no brief, the lessons stay listed unranked, as today, and nothing is asked.
- spc-2609221011151661abcd-s-typed-judgements-can-run-through-a-decision-adapter