28 — Validation Scenarios
Scenario A — Agreement, shared evidence
Two SNOs cite the same evidence and agree.
Expected:
- high entanglement;
- low chirality;
- no synthesis required;
- possible merge/deduplication.
Scenario B — Disagreement, shared evidence
Two SNOs cite the same evidence and reach opposite conclusions.
Expected:
- high entanglement;
- high chirality;
- Antagonist flags productive conflict;
- residual tensor built;
- predicate invention considered.
Scenario C — Disagreement, unrelated evidence
Two SNOs disagree but cite different evidence bases.
Expected:
- low entanglement;
- possible topic mismatch;
- pair selector downgrades.
Scenario D — Citation hallucination
Claim cites missing evidence ID.
Expected:
- citation critic fails;
- no strict promotion;
- SNO status rejected or partial.
Scenario E — Access-blocked claim
Evidence needed for resolution is sealed/withheld.
Expected:
- access critic blocks strict conclusion;
- audit reports access gap;
- possible-world report includes access assumptions.
Scenario F — Predicate overfit
Predicate invention proposes a latent variable that reduces training residual but lacks evidence.
Expected:
- predicate rejected;
- false predicate counted;
- residual remains unresolved.
Scenario G — Orthesis failure
Synthesized text re-grounds into different proof-critical atoms.
Expected:
- high round-trip residual;
- orthesis rejected;
- Synthesizer receives correction packet.
Scenario H — True unresolved contradiction
Evidence supports incompatible claims and no grounded latent predicate exists.
Expected:
- CNS preserves contradiction;
- report marks unresolved;
- possible collection recommendations.