derive-pipeline-has-end-to-end-quality-enforcement
OUT derived (depth 3)
The derive pipeline achieves end-to-end quality enforcement: defensive validation prevents invalid proposals, Jaccard retraction guards prevent re-derivation of known-bad conclusions, budget allocation is accurate, AND the minimum-antecedents rule for derived beliefs is enforced in code — not just as an LLM prompt instruction that can be ignored.
Summary
This claim says the derive pipeline has complete quality control from start to finish, covering input validation, prevention of repeated bad conclusions, correct budget tracking, and code-level enforcement of derivation rules. It is currently not supported because one or both of its underlying assumptions about the pipeline's defensive measures or production readiness are themselves not held to be true.
Justifications
SL — Defensive validation (depth-1) and production readiness (depth-2) establish pipeline quality, but true end-to-end enforcement requires the min-antecedents rule to be validated in code rather than relying solely on LLM prompt compliance
Antecedents (all must be IN):
- derive-pipeline-is-defensive — The derive pipeline applies multiple defensive measures: fail-soft validation, Jaccard-based retraction guard, and environment variable stripping to prevent recursive spawning
- derive-pipeline-is-production-ready — The derive pipeline correctly allocates budgets, validates proposals defensively, and produces well-formed beliefs through a round-trippable prompt contract.
Unless (any of these IN defeats this justification):
- derive-min-antecedents-is-prompt-only — The minimum-2-antecedents rule for derived beliefs is enforced only by the LLM prompt instructions, not validated in code by `validate_proposals`.