153 lines
5.3 KiB
Markdown
153 lines
5.3 KiB
Markdown
# Mechanism Audit: Second Round Simulation And Invocation Boundary
|
|
|
|
## 1. Scope
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
audited_runs:
|
|
first_round: discussions/viewpoint-development/2026-06-05-失望性情感隔离
|
|
second_round: discussions/viewpoint-development/2026-06-05-失望性情感隔离2
|
|
audit_date: 2026-06-07
|
|
purpose: distinguish useful reference analysis from formal CCPE Skill / participant invocation
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
This audit is a mechanism-level note. It does not restart the third-round test.
|
|
|
|
## 2. Finding
|
|
|
|
The second round improved analysis quality, but it did not complete formal Skill / participant invocation for the full workflow.
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
analysis_quality: useful
|
|
formal_invocation_status: incomplete
|
|
reason:
|
|
- Step 0 used a real high-context participant output, but the carrier was one-shot and not preserved for later correction.
|
|
- topic graph synthesis, material routing, topic docs, material extraction, and audits were primarily produced by the main session.
|
|
- later stages therefore did not test canonical Skill / worker invocation boundaries.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The second round should be treated as:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
- valid reference context for known structure and user confirmations
|
|
- not formal proof and not formal execution of every required participant
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 3. Did The Second Round Truly Use Skill Prompts?
|
|
|
|
Step 0:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
status: real participant output
|
|
canonical_status: whole-source-gestalt-reviewer was pending CCPE sync, so this was a Knowledge Vault prompt-to-send participant rather than an existing CCPE canonical Skill
|
|
recorded_files:
|
|
- invocations/whole-source-gestalt-reviewer/agent-invocation-packet.md
|
|
- invocations/whole-source-gestalt-reviewer/prompt-to-send.md
|
|
- invocations/whole-source-gestalt-reviewer/returned-output.md
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Later topic/routing/extraction stages:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
status: main-session simulation / shortcut
|
|
skill_prompt_use: insufficient as formal Skill execution
|
|
reason:
|
|
- no separate participant returned-output was recorded for these stages
|
|
- no evidence-routing-and-topic-doc-builder skill-execution-record was recorded
|
|
- main-session artifacts may follow the intended schema, but schema-following is not the same as Skill invocation
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Conclusion:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Second round used a real Step 0 prompt-to-send participant.
|
|
Second round did not demonstrate real invocation of the downstream CCPE Skill prompts.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 4. Limited Benefits Of Simulation / Main-Session Shortcut
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
- quickly validated that Step 0 fixes the first-round chunk-first distortion
|
|
- produced a stable topic graph and material extraction reference
|
|
- exposed which model relations require user confirmation
|
|
- generated concrete evidence for updating the mechanism
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The shortcut is useful only as diagnostic scaffolding or a disposable reference. It is not a valid CCPE invocation path.
|
|
|
|
## 5. Costs And Risks
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
- it can make the run look complete while bypassing participant invocation
|
|
- it does not test whether CCPE Skill prompts are executable in real threads
|
|
- it hides continuity problems such as a one-shot Step 0 agent that cannot receive user corrections
|
|
- it increases main-session context pressure, especially for future 200k-character sources
|
|
- it blurs the difference between production pragmatism and mechanism-test evidence
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The main risk is false confidence: the analysis result may be good, but the orchestration mechanism remains unproven.
|
|
|
|
## 6. First Round Contrast
|
|
|
|
The first round had the opposite profile:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
mechanism_strength:
|
|
- bounded topic-discovery workers were created as separate Codex Threads
|
|
- worker-output-index recorded thread ids
|
|
- returned packets recorded source ranges and canonical artifact paths
|
|
analysis_weakness:
|
|
- no Step 0 whole-source lens existed before worker splitting
|
|
- workers saw local ranges but could not preserve global hierarchy
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
The third-round mechanism should combine:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
first_round:
|
|
- real Codex Thread workers
|
|
- file-backed returned outputs
|
|
second_round:
|
|
- Step 0 whole-source gestalt alignment
|
|
- user-confirmed model relation corrections
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 7. Formal Invocation Rule
|
|
|
|
The mechanism now requires strict invocation by default:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
- persistent Codex Thread as default carrier for Step 0
|
|
- one-shot agent accepted only as reference analysis, not as formal persistent alignment
|
|
- explicit carrier metadata in every invocation packet
|
|
- topic-graph-synthesizer as a required synthesis boundary
|
|
- worker/sub-session execution for evidence routing, topic docs, and material extraction
|
|
- Gate 6 only after worker-backed topic docs and material-unit extraction exist
|
|
- main-session bounded extraction excluded from formal synthesis
|
|
- simulation-only artifacts must be clearly labeled and excluded
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## 8. Answer To Material Extraction Gate Question
|
|
|
|
Reasonable rule:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Gate 6 should happen after topic docs and material extraction are produced by workers.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Gate 6 is not a permission gate to start extraction. It is a usefulness gate:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
- Are topic docs usable?
|
|
- Are extracted material units sufficient for downstream automation?
|
|
- Do any topic groups need worker repair?
|
|
- Can downstream handoff proceed without another structure pause?
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If extraction is too large, run it by topic group and allow Gate 6 to be partial:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Gate 6A: first topic group accepted / repair needed
|
|
Gate 6B: remaining topic groups accepted / repair needed
|
|
Gate 6-final: full package accepted for downstream use
|
|
```
|