5.3 KiB

Raw Blame History

Mechanism Audit: Second Round Simulation And Invocation Boundary

1. Scope

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.

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:

- 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:

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:

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:

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

- 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

- 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:

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:

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:

- 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:

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:

- 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:

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

5.3 KiB Raw Blame History