# Current Asset Pack

This file replaces separate upload of current asset files. Each section includes original path and SHA256.

===== FILE: README.md =====

- Original path: `README.md`
- SHA256: `b8f70b6119cd6400148dd39316ff5c4b3e24d30e79705c445b9b5bd759eb3868`

````markdown
# The Mindscape of Bro Tsong

Project: The Mindscape of Bro Tsong

Current phase: `model_library_mvp`

Current subsystem: Model Library / Model Management MVP

## 1. Project Definition

This project is a file-first MVP for a cognitive model library.

It turns core cognitive models into structured, traceable, callable, and testable model assets.

The first version validates the workflow with two sample models:

- QPI
- Intellectual Archaeology

## 2. What This Project Is

This project is:

- A model asset library
- A model card system
- A source evidence index
- A regression test container
- A minimal model selection demo foundation
- A foundation for a future question-answering / cognitive processing system

## 3. What This Project Is Not

This project is not:

- A full model management platform
- A public SaaS product
- A user-facing application
- A complete knowledge graph
- A full RAG system
- A commercial platform
- A multi-user collaboration system
- A complete question-answering system

## 4. Current MVP Goal

The current MVP tests whether a small number of core cognitive models can be represented as:

- Human-readable model cards
- Machine-readable JSON model specs
- Source article records
- Source evidence excerpts
- Regression test cases
- Minimal selector inputs and outputs

## 5. First Sample Models

### QPI

QPI is a routing model that classifies a user input as:

- Question: lack of information
- Problem: lack of path or method
- Issue: lack of stability, consensus, or dynamic balance

### Intellectual Archaeology

Intellectual Archaeology is a deep modeling model that analyzes a topic through multiple depth layers, from surface application to mechanism, purpose, human capability, and philosophical assumptions.

## 6. Repository Structure

```text
docs/      Project rules, contracts, workflow notes, decisions, non-goals, and handoff templates.
schemas/   JSON Schema files for model specs, source records, source excerpts, and regression cases.
models/    Machine-readable JSON model specifications.
cards/     Human-readable Markdown model cards.
sources/   Source article records and source evidence excerpts.
tests/     Regression cases for model use, misuse, and boundary checks.
selector/  Rule-based selector configuration and examples.
scripts/   Local validation and selector demo scripts.
reports/   Validation reports, extraction notes, and concrete session handoffs.
knowledge_assets/  Stable long-term reusable knowledge distilled from local project artifacts.
```

## 7. Data Format

The project uses JSON as the machine-readable source format.

Markdown files are used for human-readable model cards and documentation.

## 8. Validation

All model JSON files should pass the local schema before they are treated as stable.

Validation should check:

- Required fields
- Enum values
- Unique model IDs
- Source article references
- Source evidence references
- Regression test references
- Model/card indexes
- Markdown card required sections
- Regression case coverage

## 9. Minimal Selector

The selector is not a full AI system.

It is a simple demo that recommends candidate models based on:

- Trigger keywords
- Input type match
- Negative triggers
- Pipeline position
- Selection priority

## 10. Development Principles

- Keep the MVP small.
- Prefer files over databases.
- Prefer explicit schema over implicit conventions.
- Prefer traceability over automation.
- Prefer testability over expressive writing.
- Do not expand to many models before the sample models are stable.
- Treat `model_library_mvp` as the current phase, not as a nested project root.

## 11. Related Projects

- `knowledge-vault`: source archive, discussion records, and durable upstream documentation.
- `ccpe-system`: expert-agent, runtime, model, and protocol specification workbench.
- `skills-vault`: canonical source for reusable automation skills.
- `writing-workbench`: deep writing production workspace.
- `video-workbench`: dimensional output workspace for scripts, presentations, and videos.

This repository consumes selected source material and model definitions from the surrounding ecosystem, but it remains the product/system boundary for The Mindscape of Bro Tsong.

See `PROJECTS.md` for the operative cross-repository boundary map, including request channels for `ccpe-system` and `skills-vault`.

## 12. Current Status

Foundation repair in progress for:

- QPI
- Intellectual Archaeology / 思想考古学

Current foundation assets include:

- GPT plan localization protocol.
- Model extraction rules.
- Model card contract.
- Model extraction workflow.
- JSON schemas for model cards, source articles, source excerpts, regression cases, and indexes.
- Machine-readable model index.
- Human-readable card index.
- Validation scripts for model library contracts and card headings.
- Source article and source excerpt indexes.
- Regression cases for model use, boundary behavior, and misuse.
- Rule-based selector configuration and examples.
- A standard-library validation script that writes `reports/validation_report.md`.
- A standard-library index rebuild/check script that writes `reports/index_rebuild_report.md`.
- ChatGPT handoff rules.
- Long-term knowledge asset rules and initial `knowledge_assets/` documents.

Current QPI and Intellectual Archaeology model contents pass the local contract and remain `draft` pending product review.

Indexes follow `docs/INDEX_MAINTENANCE_PROTOCOL.md`: every asset change must synchronize `models/model_index.json` and `cards/card_index.md`, and handoff/release points must run a full rebuild or check.

## 13. Next Steps

1. Review QPI and Intellectual Archaeology content for product correctness.
2. Review whether the new `knowledge_assets/` package is sufficient for ChatGPT / CCRA reuse.
3. Decide whether to expand to a third core model.
4. Decide whether extraction, inspection, and stability scoring should become CCPE or skills-vault requests.
````

===== FILE: models/model_index.json =====

- Original path: `models/model_index.json`
- SHA256: `04f6d0220bf1f2f6a627bf587f323128a555fa975688b74fd15ca5bd908b072c`

````json
{
  "index_version": "0.1",
  "last_updated": "2026-06-16",
  "models": [
    {
      "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology",
      "model_name": "思想考古学",
      "model_type": "deep_modeling_model",
      "pipeline_position": "deep_analysis",
      "model_file": "models/intellectual_archaeology.model.json",
      "card_file": "cards/intellectual_archaeology.md",
      "source_article_count": 2,
      "source_evidence_count": 5,
      "regression_case_count": 17,
      "stability_level": "B",
      "regression_status": "pending",
      "status": "draft",
      "last_updated": "2026-06-16"
    },
    {
      "model_id": "qpi",
      "model_name": "QPI 三元定性模型",
      "model_type": "routing_model",
      "pipeline_position": "pre_analysis",
      "model_file": "models/qpi.model.json",
      "card_file": "cards/qpi.md",
      "source_article_count": 2,
      "source_evidence_count": 7,
      "regression_case_count": 17,
      "stability_level": "B",
      "regression_status": "pending",
      "status": "draft",
      "last_updated": "2026-06-16"
    }
  ]
}
````

===== FILE: cards/card_index.md =====

- Original path: `cards/card_index.md`
- SHA256: `171a024f17cf7d3a57231cf77a183fd89cb12165b9b6f3b88e63cd32c43f86a3`

````markdown
# Card Index

| Model ID | 模型名称 | 类型 | 流程位置 | Card | Model JSON | 稳固性 | 回归状态 | 状态 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| intellectual_archaeology | 思想考古学 | deep_modeling_model | deep_analysis | `cards/intellectual_archaeology.md` | `models/intellectual_archaeology.model.json` | B | pending | draft |
| qpi | QPI 三元定性模型 | routing_model | pre_analysis | `cards/qpi.md` | `models/qpi.model.json` | B | pending | draft |
````

===== FILE: models/qpi.model.json =====

- Original path: `models/qpi.model.json`
- SHA256: `2ff7db7bfc34e7bebc2cd888c67ee8235ef4eab1f0b2091306a308ab821a9f43`

````json
{
  "model_id": "qpi",
  "model_name": "QPI 三元定性模型",
  "model_type": "routing_model",
  "pipeline_position": "pre_analysis",
  "one_sentence_definition": "QPI 用核心匮乏物把混沌局面区分为提问、难题和课题，以决定后续应采用检索、工程求解还是生态干预。",
  "core_question": "当前输入真正缺的是数据、路径/资源，还是共识/确定性/秩序？",
  "core_mechanism": "先确认问题拥有者、来源和时间尺度，再扫描核心匮乏物：缺数据则归为提问，缺路径、方法或资源则归为难题，缺共识、确定性或动态秩序则归为课题；随后检查是否存在暴力降维、恶意升维或手段错配。",
  "status": "draft",
  "source_articles": [
    "article_qpi_primary_001",
    "article_cognitive_os_synthesis_001"
  ],
  "source_evidence": [
    "excerpt_qpi_primary_spectrum_001",
    "excerpt_qpi_primary_question_001",
    "excerpt_qpi_primary_problem_001",
    "excerpt_qpi_primary_issue_001",
    "excerpt_qpi_primary_pathology_reduction_001",
    "excerpt_qpi_primary_pathology_inflation_001",
    "excerpt_qpi_cognitive_os_application_001"
  ],
  "input_types": [
    "模糊问题",
    "复杂问题",
    "业务问题描述",
    "组织冲突叙述",
    "需求或故障初始表述",
    "需要进入深度分析前的问题定义"
  ],
  "output_types": [
    "问题类型判断",
    "问题拥有者",
    "问题来源",
    "时间尺度",
    "三类匮乏物强度",
    "主导匮乏物",
    "分类理由",
    "分类置信度",
    "证据缺口",
    "核心匮乏物判断",
    "误判风险",
    "推荐处理路径",
    "后续模型调用建议"
  ],
  "call_when": [
    "用户输入的问题定义不清。",
    "同一问题被不同主体以不同方式理解。",
    "用户急于求解但尚未判断问题性质。",
    "问题中混杂事实、路径、利益、共识和系统结构。",
    "需要决定后续调用哪些认知模型。",
    "怀疑存在暴力降维、恶意升维或手段与目标错配。"
  ],
  "do_not_call_when": [
    "用户只是查询明确事实。",
    "用户已经给出明确执行任务。",
    "输入是纯创意写作且不需要问题定性。",
    "问题已经被清楚分类且只需要执行后续步骤。",
    "输入不是问题定义，而是纯粹的润色或格式转换请求。"
  ],
  "trigger_keywords": [
    "问题到底是什么",
    "为什么解决不了",
    "卡在哪里",
    "技术问题还是组织问题",
    "方向是不是错了",
    "为什么反复出现",
    "该怎么定义这个问题",
    "这个问题怎么拆",
    "缺数据",
    "缺路径",
    "缺共识"
  ],
  "negative_triggers": [
    "请直接查询",
    "请直接改写",
    "只要清单",
    "不要分析原因",
    "不要展开",
    "只改错别字"
  ],
  "related_models": [
    "intellectual_archaeology"
  ],
  "conflicting_models": [],
  "disciplinary_anchors": [
    "问题定义理论",
    "决策科学",
    "系统论",
    "复杂系统",
    "组织行为",
    "工程问题分解"
  ],
  "common_misuses": [
    "把 QPI 当作完整解决方案，而不是问题定义和路由模型。",
    "把所有复杂叙事都归为课题，逃避可执行的难题拆解。",
    "把系统性课题暴力压缩成个人执行难题。",
    "把具体可解决的难题恶意升维成不可处理的课题。",
    "在事实缺口上过度建模，拖慢本应直接检索的提问。",
    "忽略问题拥有者，直接给出单一视角的分类。"
  ],
  "failure_modes": [
    "核心匮乏物识别错误，导致后续资源配置错位。",
    "未识别权力叙事，接受了伪问题或甩锅框架。",
    "把动态平衡型课题误判为可终结的难题。",
    "把明确工程障碍误判为需要无限讨论的课题。",
    "分类没有给出理由。",
    "分类之后没有给出后续处理路径。"
  ],
  "selection_priority": 9,
  "confidence_level": "medium",
  "stability_profile": {
    "stability_level": "B",
    "needs_stabilization": true,
    "main_risks": [
      "Q/P/I 在真实复杂案例中可能同时存在，需要输出主导匮乏物而非单标签绝对判断。",
      "权力博弈判断依赖上下文，证据不足时不能断言动机。",
      "边界案例仍需用真实业务输入扩展。"
    ],
    "reason": "三分结构清晰，适合作为入口路由模型，但需要补充大量边界案例，防止过度升维或降维。",
    "next_stabilization_action": "补充混合问题、误用问题和轻量问题测试，并记录主导匮乏物判断标准。",
    "stabilization_notes": "当前已具备 v0.1 调用基础，但仍保持 draft 状态。"
  },
  "regression_status": "pending",
  "example_inputs": [
    "我们团队每次都说要长期主义，但一到季度 KPI 就回到短期动作，这到底是什么问题？",
    "我知道要做模型库，但不知道先用数据库还是文件系统，这属于什么问题？"
  ],
  "example_outputs": [
    "第一个输入更接近课题，因为它涉及激励结构、时间尺度冲突和组织共识。",
    "第二个输入更接近难题，因为目标明确，主要缺的是实现路径和技术取舍。"
  ],
  "output_contract": [
    "problem_owner: 谁的问题；未知时写 unknown。",
    "problem_source: 问题从哪里被提出，是否可能带有立场、恐惧或甩锅框架。",
    "time_scale: short_term | mid_term | long_term | mixed | unknown。",
    "scarcity_profile: 分别标出 data_scarcity、path_or_resource_scarcity、consensus_or_order_scarcity 的 high | medium | low | unknown。",
    "dominant_scarcity: data | path_resource | consensus_order | mixed | unknown。",
    "classification: question | problem | issue | mixed | no_call。",
    "classification_confidence: high | medium | low。",
    "evidence_gap: 列出还缺哪些信息才能稳定判断；mixed 或 low confidence 时必须填写。",
    "misclassification_risk: 标出暴力降维、恶意升维或手段错配风险。",
    "recommended_next_step: 检索 | 工程拆解 | 共识协调 | 补充上下文 | 不调用。",
    "next_model_candidates: 后续可调用模型 ID；无则为空数组。"
  ],
  "structured_output_contract": {
    "problem_owner": "string | unknown",
    "problem_source": "string | unknown",
    "time_scale": ["short_term", "mid_term", "long_term", "mixed", "unknown"],
    "scarcity_profile": {
      "data_scarcity": ["high", "medium", "low", "unknown"],
      "path_or_resource_scarcity": ["high", "medium", "low", "unknown"],
      "consensus_or_order_scarcity": ["high", "medium", "low", "unknown"]
    },
    "dominant_scarcity": ["data", "path_resource", "consensus_order", "mixed", "unknown"],
    "classification": ["question", "problem", "issue", "mixed", "no_call"],
    "classification_confidence": ["high", "medium", "low"],
    "evidence_gap": "array<string>",
    "misclassification_risk": "array<string>",
    "recommended_next_step": ["检索", "工程拆解", "共识协调", "补充上下文", "不调用"],
    "next_model_candidates": "array<model_id>"
  },
  "depth_control": {
    "principle": "先定性，再决定是否进入深层模型。",
    "stop_conditions": [
      "如果只是明确事实查询，停止在提问层并建议检索。",
      "如果已明确是执行任务，停止继续路由。",
      "如果分类证据不足，先输出 evidence_gap 并要求补充上下文。",
      "如果 negative_triggers 命中且没有复杂问题信号，输出 classification=no_call。"
    ],
    "overuse_warning": "QPI 是前置路由模型，不应替代后续具体分析模型。"
  },
  "stabilization_path": [
    "补充真实业务混合案例。",
    "补充暴力降维和恶意升维案例。",
    "形成主导匮乏物判定示例库。"
  ],
  "productization_notes": "QPI 应作为问题回答系统的前置路由模型，用于防止系统在问题类型错误的情况下直接给答案。",
  "version": "0.1",
  "last_updated": "2026-06-16"
}
````

===== FILE: models/intellectual_archaeology.model.json =====

- Original path: `models/intellectual_archaeology.model.json`
- SHA256: `c114ffac2065d42603d071c1339af9833c133a1bc942b1f2a1c57fa9d141831d`

````json
{
  "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology",
  "model_name": "思想考古学",
  "model_type": "deep_modeling_model",
  "pipeline_position": "deep_analysis",
  "one_sentence_definition": "思想考古学是一种从表层应用逐层下钻到哲学基岩的建模方法，用于发现支撑一个模型或判断的深层假设、核心机理和动态韧性来源。",
  "core_question": "当前问题、方案或模型背后，隐藏了哪些更深层的结构性假设？",
  "core_mechanism": "把待建模对象放入七层深度框架：应用层、领域层、过程层、目的层、核心机理层、人类能力层、哲学基岩层；逐层追问支撑上一层的假设，并以最小充分下潜原则停止，避免为了深刻而深刻。",
  "status": "draft",
  "source_articles": [
    "article_intellectual_archaeology_primary_001",
    "article_cognitive_os_synthesis_001"
  ],
  "source_evidence": [
    "excerpt_ia_primary_definition_001",
    "excerpt_ia_primary_layers_001",
    "excerpt_ia_primary_resilience_001",
    "excerpt_ia_cognitive_os_minimum_depth_001",
    "excerpt_ia_primary_validation_001"
  ],
  "input_types": [
    "复杂问题",
    "系统性议题",
    "反复失败的问题",
    "专家隐性知识",
    "认知模型草稿",
    "产品底层逻辑",
    "需要抽取底层假设的业务方案"
  ],
  "output_types": [
    "层级化问题地图",
    "是否应该调用",
    "进入思想考古的理由",
    "建议最大下潜层级",
    "实际分析层级",
    "停止理由",
    "不继续下潜理由",
    "深层假设清单",
    "最小充分下潜层级",
    "模型稳固性判断",
    "需要验证的薄弱环节",
    "后续建模建议"
  ],
  "call_when": [
    "QPI 判断问题偏课题或中重型难题。",
    "问题具有高复用价值。",
    "用户希望从文章中抽取模型。",
    "当前解释停留在表层工具或症状。",
    "需要把专家隐性知识显性化。",
    "需要为一个模型寻找更稳固的底层结构。",
    "一个问题反复解决但反复失败。"
  ],
  "do_not_call_when": [
    "当前只是缺少一个事实或材料位置，直接检索即可。",
    "问题属于低风险轻量表达，不值得进入深层建模。",
    "继续下钻不再改变判断、路径、验证方式或行动边界。",
    "用户明确只需要短平快执行，不需要模型化解释。",
    "缺少足够领域材料，无法区分真实底层假设和空泛哲学化表达。"
  ],
  "trigger_keywords": [
    "深层结构",
    "底层逻辑",
    "模型稳不稳",
    "为什么反复失败",
    "问题的根在哪里",
    "沉淀成模型",
    "从文章抽取模型",
    "方法论的基岩",
    "隐性知识",
    "哲学基岩"
  ],
  "negative_triggers": [
    "快速回答",
    "不要展开",
    "只查事实",
    "只要执行步骤",
    "不要深入分析",
    "只改文案"
  ],
  "related_models": [
    "qpi"
  ],
  "conflicting_models": [
    "fast_execution_flow"
  ],
  "disciplinary_anchors": [
    "哲学",
    "认识论",
    "系统论",
    "复杂系统",
    "认知心理学",
    "专家知识显性化",
    "因果推理",
    "设计理论"
  ],
  "common_misuses": [
    "把思想考古学误用为文章摘要或概念堆叠。",
    "为了显得深刻而无限下钻。",
    "把所有轻量问题都拖入七层分析。",
    "只做纵向下潜而缺少横向模型竞争。",
    "用哲学基岩替代现实验证。",
    "下潜后没有回到可行动结论。"
  ],
  "failure_modes": [
    "分析很深但不能改变判断或行动。",
    "层级之间没有清楚递进关系。",
    "把所有问题都下钻到哲学层。",
    "输出只有抽象概念而没有模型结构。",
    "没有说明应该在哪一层停止。",
    "没有指出需要证据验证的地方。"
  ],
  "selection_priority": 7,
  "confidence_level": "medium",
  "stability_profile": {
    "stability_level": "B",
    "needs_stabilization": true,
    "main_risks": [
      "七层结构需要进一步稳定。",
      "容易过度下潜。",
      "容易输出抽象概念而缺少行动回路。",
      "需要更多真实案例验证。"
    ],
    "reason": "纵向下潜机制清晰，适合深度建模，但七层结构和停止条件需要进一步稳定。",
    "next_stabilization_action": "补充不同复杂度问题的下潜深度测试，明确最小充分下潜原则。",
    "stabilization_notes": "当前适合作为中重型问题的 draft 深度建模模块。"
  },
  "regression_status": "pending",
  "example_inputs": [
    "我想把过去文章中的认知模型抽取出来，但不知道这些模型到底稳不稳，应该怎么判断？",
    "现代人为什么一边渴望连接，一边又渴望逃离连接？"
  ],
  "example_outputs": [
    "第一个输入适合下潜到核心机理层，判断文章、模型卡、系统调用、回归测试之间的关系。",
    "第二个输入可从应用层、评价层、过程层、目的层和人类能力层分析连接与逃离连接的双重机制。"
  ],
  "output_contract": [
    "should_call: true | false。",
    "entry_reason: 为什么值得进入思想考古；不应调用时说明 no-call 原因。",
    "recommended_max_depth: application | domain | process | purpose | core_mechanism | human_capability | philosophical_bedrock。",
    "layers_to_analyze: 实际需要分析的层级数组。",
    "stop_reason: 为什么停在这一层。",
    "no_deeper_reason: 继续下潜不会改变什么。",
    "assumptions_by_layer: 按七层列出关键假设；未分析层级保留空数组。",
    "validation_needed: 哪些判断需要现实反馈、数据、专家盲审或红队。",
    "action_implication: 下潜结果如何改变下一步行动。"
  ],
  "structured_output_contract": {
    "should_call": "boolean",
    "entry_reason": "string",
    "recommended_max_depth": ["application", "domain", "process", "purpose", "core_mechanism", "human_capability", "philosophical_bedrock"],
    "layers_to_analyze": "array<layer_id>",
    "stop_reason": "string",
    "no_deeper_reason": "string",
    "assumptions_by_layer": {
      "application": "array<string>",
      "domain": "array<string>",
      "process": "array<string>",
      "purpose": "array<string>",
      "core_mechanism": "array<string>",
      "human_capability": "array<string>",
      "philosophical_bedrock": "array<string>"
    },
    "validation_needed": "array<string>",
    "action_implication": "string"
  },
  "depth_control": {
    "principle": "最小充分下潜",
    "stop_conditions": [
      "已经足以改变决策。",
      "继续下潜不会增加解释力。",
      "缺少证据支撑更深推断。",
      "问题不值得重型建模。",
      "用户当前只需要执行层结果。",
      "QPI 未放行中重型难题或课题时，不进入完整思想考古。",
      "如果 recommended_max_depth 低于 philosophical_bedrock，不得自动展开到哲学基岩。"
    ],
    "overuse_warning": "思想考古不是所有问题的默认流程，必须先经过问题价值评估和 QPI 定性。"
  },
  "stabilization_path": [
    "补充轻量、中量、重量问题的边界测试。",
    "补充不同领域的七层下钻案例。",
    "建立停止条件和现实验证的示例库。"
  ],
  "productization_notes": "思想考古适合作为中重度问题的深层建模模块，不应默认全量调用。它应该由 QPI、问题复杂度和复用价值共同触发。",
  "version": "0.1",
  "last_updated": "2026-06-16"
}
````

===== FILE: cards/qpi.md =====

- Original path: `cards/qpi.md`
- SHA256: `dea4f4c03037e904598aa9cb08b0bd866a53f55fdab3983ede6a4bb0c1e86c4f`

````markdown
# QPI 三元定性模型

## 模型名称

QPI 三元定性模型

## 模型 ID

`qpi`

## 一句话定义

QPI 用核心匮乏物把混沌局面区分为提问、难题和课题，以决定后续应采用检索、工程求解还是生态干预。

## 模型类型

`routing_model`

QPI 是前置路由模型，不是最终分析模型。

## 所在流程位置

`pre_analysis`

它应在深度分析、系统建模或执行拆解之前调用。

## 来源文章

- `article_qpi_primary_001`: 《问题之锚：从混沌现实到认知秩序的重构》
- `article_cognitive_os_synthesis_001`: 《Wantsong认知操作系统》

## 来源证据片段

- `excerpt_qpi_primary_spectrum_001`: 支撑 QPI 的三元分类和核心匮乏物定义。
- `excerpt_qpi_primary_question_001`: 支撑提问对应数据匮乏。
- `excerpt_qpi_primary_problem_001`: 支撑难题对应路径、方法和资源匮乏。
- `excerpt_qpi_primary_issue_001`: 支撑课题对应动态平衡和演化。
- `excerpt_qpi_primary_pathology_reduction_001`: 支撑暴力降维误用识别。
- `excerpt_qpi_primary_pathology_inflation_001`: 支撑恶意升维误用识别。
- `excerpt_qpi_cognitive_os_application_001`: 支撑 QPI 在问题定义阶段的应用位置。

## 核心问题

当前输入真正缺的是数据、路径/资源，还是共识/确定性/秩序？

## 核心机制

QPI 先确认问题拥有者、来源和时间尺度，再扫描核心匮乏物。

- 缺数据，归为提问，适合搜索、检索、自动化。
- 缺路径、方法或资源，归为难题，适合工程求解和资源调配。
- 缺共识、确定性或动态秩序，归为课题，适合对话、博弈、干预和演化。

完成分类后，还要检查是否存在暴力降维、恶意升维或手段错配。

## 输入类型

- 模糊问题
- 复杂问题
- 业务问题描述
- 组织冲突叙述
- 需求或故障初始表述
- 需要进入深度分析前的问题定义

## 输出类型

- 问题类型判断
- 问题拥有者
- 问题来源
- 时间尺度
- 三类匮乏物强度
- 主导匮乏物
- 分类理由
- 分类置信度
- 证据缺口
- 核心匮乏物判断
- 误判风险
- 推荐处理路径
- 后续模型调用建议

## 适用场景

- 用户输入的问题定义不清。
- 同一问题被不同主体以不同方式理解。
- 用户急于求解但尚未判断问题性质。
- 问题中混杂事实、路径、利益、共识和系统结构。
- 需要决定后续调用哪些认知模型。
- 怀疑存在暴力降维、恶意升维或手段与目标错配。

## 不适用场景

- 用户只是查询明确事实。
- 用户已经给出明确执行任务。
- 输入是纯创意写作且不需要问题定性。
- 问题已经被清楚分类且只需要执行后续步骤。
- 输入不是问题定义，而是纯粹的润色或格式转换请求。

## 调用关键词

- 问题到底是什么
- 为什么解决不了
- 卡在哪里
- 技术问题还是组织问题
- 方向是不是错了
- 为什么反复出现
- 该怎么定义这个问题
- 这个问题怎么拆
- 缺数据
- 缺路径
- 缺共识

## 负向触发条件

- 请直接查询
- 请直接改写
- 只要清单
- 不要分析原因
- 不要展开
- 只改错别字

## 相关模型

- `intellectual_archaeology`: 当 QPI 判断问题偏中重型难题或课题时，可进入思想考古做深度建模。

## 冲突模型

无明确冲突模型。

## 学科底座关联

- 问题定义理论
- 决策科学
- 系统论
- 复杂系统
- 组织行为
- 工程问题分解

## 常见误用

- 把 QPI 当作完整解决方案，而不是问题定义和路由模型。
- 把所有复杂叙事都归为课题，逃避可执行的难题拆解。
- 把系统性课题暴力压缩成个人执行难题。
- 把具体可解决的难题恶意升维成不可处理的课题。
- 在事实缺口上过度建模，拖慢本应直接检索的提问。
- 忽略问题拥有者，直接给出单一视角的分类。

## 失败信号

- 核心匮乏物识别错误，导致后续资源配置错位。
- 未识别权力叙事，接受了伪问题或甩锅框架。
- 把动态平衡型课题误判为可终结的难题。
- 把明确工程障碍误判为需要无限讨论的课题。
- 分类没有给出理由。
- 分类之后没有给出后续处理路径。

## 可信度等级

`medium`

QPI 的三分结构和核心匮乏物有清晰原文支撑，但真实输入中经常出现 Q/P/I 混合状态，仍需要更多边界案例稳定判断。

## 稳固性状态

`B`

需要继续稳定化。

## 稳定性评估

- 概念清晰度：较高，提问、难题、课题的核心匮乏物清楚。
- 机制稳定性：中高，扫描匮乏物和匹配处理范式的机制明确。
- 边界清晰度：中等，混合型问题仍需更多测试。
- 来源证据质量：较高，主要定义来自原文，应用规则来自综合文档。
- 回归测试表现：pending，已有五条样板用例，尚未经过真实案例扩展。

评级理由：三分结构清晰，适合作为入口路由模型，但需要补充大量边界案例，防止过度升维或降维。

下一步稳定化动作：补充混合问题、误用问题和轻量问题测试，并记录主导匮乏物判断标准。

## 回归测试状态

`pending`

当前已有五条回归用例：

- `case_qpi_positive_question_001`
- `case_qpi_positive_problem_001`
- `case_qpi_positive_issue_001`
- `case_qpi_boundary_mixed_001`
- `case_qpi_misuse_inflation_001`

## 示例输入

- “我们团队每次都说要长期主义，但一到季度 KPI 就回到短期动作，这到底是什么问题？”
- “我知道要做模型库，但不知道先用数据库还是文件系统，这属于什么问题？”

## 示例输出

- “第一个输入更接近课题，因为它涉及激励结构、时间尺度冲突和组织共识。”
- “第二个输入更接近难题，因为目标明确，主要缺的是实现路径和技术取舍。”

## 输出契约

输出必须包含：

- `problem_owner`: 谁的问题；未知时写 `unknown`。
- `problem_source`: 问题从哪里被提出，是否可能带有立场、恐惧或甩锅框架。
- `time_scale`: `short_term | mid_term | long_term | mixed | unknown`。
- `scarcity_profile`: 分别标出 `data_scarcity`、`path_or_resource_scarcity`、`consensus_or_order_scarcity` 的强度。
- `dominant_scarcity`: `data | path_resource | consensus_order | mixed | unknown`。
- `classification`: `question | problem | issue | mixed | no_call`。
- `classification_confidence`: `high | medium | low`。
- `evidence_gap`: 还缺哪些信息才能稳定判断；mixed 或 low confidence 时必须填写。
- `misclassification_risk`: 暴力降维、恶意升维或手段错配风险。
- `recommended_next_step`: 检索、工程拆解、共识协调、补充上下文或不调用。
- `next_model_candidates`: 后续可调用模型 ID。

## 深度控制

原则：先定性，再决定是否进入深层模型。

停止条件：

- 如果只是明确事实查询，停止在提问层并建议检索。
- 如果已明确是执行任务，停止继续路由。
- 如果分类证据不足，先输出 `evidence_gap` 并要求补充上下文。
- 如果负向触发命中且没有复杂问题信号，输出 `classification=no_call`。

过度调用警告：QPI 是前置路由模型，不应替代后续具体分析模型。

## 产品化建议

QPI 应作为问题回答系统的前置路由模型，用于防止系统在问题类型错误的情况下直接给答案。

selector 应优先使用 `trigger_keywords`、`negative_triggers`、`pipeline_position` 和 `selection_priority` 做规则推荐。

## 版本信息

- version: `0.1`
- last_updated: `2026-06-16`
- status: `draft`
````

===== FILE: cards/intellectual_archaeology.md =====

- Original path: `cards/intellectual_archaeology.md`
- SHA256: `705f1834a866c84e4c536cacdd25d788f3c4629847f34721040c946ebaf29b1b`

````markdown
# 思想考古学

## 模型名称

思想考古学

## 模型 ID

`intellectual_archaeology`

## 一句话定义

思想考古学是一种从表层应用逐层下钻到哲学基岩的建模方法，用于发现支撑一个模型或判断的深层假设、核心机理和动态韧性来源。

## 模型类型

`deep_modeling_model`

思想考古学是深度建模模型，不是前置路由模型，也不是轻量执行流程。

## 所在流程位置

`deep_analysis`

通常应在 QPI 或问题价值评估之后调用。

## 来源文章

- `article_intellectual_archaeology_primary_001`: 《建模者的工坊》
- `article_cognitive_os_synthesis_001`: 《Wantsong认知操作系统》

## 来源证据片段

- `excerpt_ia_primary_definition_001`: 支撑思想考古学的定义。
- `excerpt_ia_primary_layers_001`: 支撑七层下钻机制。
- `excerpt_ia_primary_resilience_001`: 支撑动态韧性价值。
- `excerpt_ia_cognitive_os_minimum_depth_001`: 支撑最小充分下潜原则。
- `excerpt_ia_primary_validation_001`: 支撑内部自洽不等于现实有效的验证要求。

## 核心问题

当前问题、方案或模型背后，隐藏了哪些更深层的结构性假设？

## 核心机制

思想考古学把待建模对象放入七层深度框架：

1. 应用层
2. 领域层
3. 过程层
4. 目的层
5. 核心机理层
6. 人类能力层
7. 哲学基岩层

每一层都追问上一层的支撑假设。下钻必须遵守最小充分下潜原则：如果继续下潜不再改变判断、路径、验证方式或行动边界，就应该停止。

## 输入类型

- 复杂问题
- 系统性议题
- 反复失败的问题
- 专家隐性知识
- 认知模型草稿
- 产品底层逻辑
- 需要抽取底层假设的业务方案

## 输出类型

- 层级化问题地图
- 是否应该调用
- 进入思想考古的理由
- 建议最大下潜层级
- 实际分析层级
- 停止理由
- 不继续下潜理由
- 深层假设清单
- 最小充分下潜层级
- 模型稳固性判断
- 需要验证的薄弱环节
- 后续建模建议

## 适用场景

- QPI 判断问题偏课题或中重型难题。
- 问题具有高复用价值。
- 用户希望从文章中抽取模型。
- 当前解释停留在表层工具或症状。
- 需要把专家隐性知识显性化。
- 需要为一个模型寻找更稳固的底层结构。
- 一个问题反复解决但反复失败。

## 不适用场景

- 当前只是缺少一个事实或材料位置，直接检索即可。
- 问题属于低风险轻量表达，不值得进入深层建模。
- 继续下钻不再改变判断、路径、验证方式或行动边界。
- 用户明确只需要短平快执行，不需要模型化解释。
- 缺少足够领域材料，无法区分真实底层假设和空泛哲学化表达。

## 调用关键词

- 深层结构
- 底层逻辑
- 模型稳不稳
- 为什么反复失败
- 问题的根在哪里
- 沉淀成模型
- 从文章抽取模型
- 方法论的基岩
- 隐性知识
- 哲学基岩

## 负向触发条件

- 快速回答
- 不要展开
- 只查事实
- 只要执行步骤
- 不要深入分析
- 只改文案

## 相关模型

- `qpi`: 通常作为前置路由模型，先判断问题是否值得进入深度建模。

## 冲突模型

- `fast_execution_flow`: 当用户只需要轻量执行或快速产出时，思想考古学不应默认介入。

## 学科底座关联

- 哲学
- 认识论
- 系统论
- 复杂系统
- 认知心理学
- 专家知识显性化
- 因果推理
- 设计理论

## 常见误用

- 把思想考古学误用为文章摘要或概念堆叠。
- 为了显得深刻而无限下钻。
- 把所有轻量问题都拖入七层分析。
- 只做纵向下潜而缺少横向模型竞争。
- 用哲学基岩替代现实验证。
- 下潜后没有回到可行动结论。

## 失败信号

- 分析很深但不能改变判断或行动。
- 层级之间没有清楚递进关系。
- 把所有问题都下钻到哲学层。
- 输出只有抽象概念而没有模型结构。
- 没有说明应该在哪一层停止。
- 没有指出需要证据验证的地方。

## 可信度等级

`medium`

思想考古学的定义、七层结构、动态韧性和验证要求都有来源支撑，但七层结构的停止条件仍需要更多跨场景案例校准。

## 稳固性状态

`B`

需要继续稳定化。

## 稳定性评估

- 概念清晰度：中高，模型名称和下钻方向明确。
- 机制稳定性：中等，七层结构清晰，但层级之间的真实递进关系需要更多案例验证。
- 边界清晰度：中等，最小充分下潜原则已明确，但执行时容易过度下钻。
- 来源证据质量：较高，核心定义和七层结构来自原文，停止条件来自综合应用材料。
- 回归测试表现：pending，已有五条样板用例，尚未扩展到更多领域。

评级理由：纵向下潜机制清晰，适合深度建模，但七层结构和停止条件需要进一步稳定。

下一步稳定化动作：补充不同复杂度问题的下潜深度测试，明确最小充分下潜原则。

## 回归测试状态

`pending`

当前已有五条回归用例：

- `case_ia_positive_deep_modeling_001`
- `case_ia_positive_resilience_001`
- `case_ia_boundary_minimum_depth_001`
- `case_ia_misuse_philosophizing_001`
- `case_ia_misuse_no_validation_001`

## 示例输入

- “我想把过去文章中的认知模型抽取出来，但不知道这些模型到底稳不稳，应该怎么判断？”
- “现代人为什么一边渴望连接，一边又渴望逃离连接？”

## 示例输出

- “第一个输入适合下潜到核心机理层，判断文章、模型卡、系统调用、回归测试之间的关系。”
- “第二个输入可从应用层、评价层、过程层、目的层和人类能力层分析连接与逃离连接的双重机制。”

## 输出契约

输出必须包含：

- `should_call`: `true | false`。
- `entry_reason`: 为什么值得进入思想考古；不应调用时说明 no-call 原因。
- `recommended_max_depth`: `application | domain | process | purpose | core_mechanism | human_capability | philosophical_bedrock`。
- `layers_to_analyze`: 实际需要分析的层级数组。
- `stop_reason`: 为什么停在这一层。
- `no_deeper_reason`: 继续下潜不会改变什么。
- `assumptions_by_layer`: 按七层列出关键假设；未分析层级保留空数组。
- `validation_needed`: 哪些判断需要现实反馈、数据、专家盲审或红队。
- `action_implication`: 下潜结果如何改变下一步行动。

## 深度控制

原则：最小充分下潜。

停止条件：

- 已经足以改变决策。
- 继续下潜不会增加解释力。
- 缺少证据支撑更深推断。
- 问题不值得重型建模。
- 用户当前只需要执行层结果。
- QPI 未放行中重型难题或课题时，不进入完整思想考古。
- 如果建议最大下潜层级低于哲学基岩，不得自动展开到哲学基岩。

过度调用警告：思想考古不是所有问题的默认流程，必须先经过问题价值评估和 QPI 定性。

## 产品化建议

思想考古适合作为中重度问题的深层建模模块，不应默认全量调用。

它应该由 QPI、问题复杂度和复用价值共同触发。输出必须回到可验证、可行动的模型结构。

## 版本信息

- version: `0.1`
- last_updated: `2026-06-16`
- status: `draft`
````

===== FILE: sources/source_articles.json =====

- Original path: `sources/source_articles.json`
- SHA256: `e0f0ea17b8beca53adba188dd3e36fd5bcdb794e76ec35821aa49d6383fc88cb`

````json
{
  "source_articles": [
    {
      "source_id": "article_qpi_primary_001",
      "title": "问题之锚：从混沌现实到认知秩序的重构",
      "author": "Wantsong",
      "date": "2026-01-07",
      "source_type": "original_article",
      "file_path": "C:\\Users\\wangq\\Documents\\Codex\\knowledge-vault\\sayings\\2026\\2026-01-07-anchoring-the-void.md",
      "related_models": ["qpi"],
      "source_status": "representative",
      "notes": "QPI 的主要来源文本，用于抽取提问、难题、课题三分结构、核心匮乏物、病理诊断与重构策略。"
    },
    {
      "source_id": "article_intellectual_archaeology_primary_001",
      "title": "建模者的工坊",
      "author": "Wantsong",
      "date": "2025-10-26",
      "source_type": "original_article",
      "file_path": "C:\\Users\\wangq\\Documents\\Codex\\knowledge-vault\\sayings\\2025\\2025-10-26-the-workshop-of-Modelers.md",
      "related_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"],
      "source_status": "representative",
      "notes": "思想考古学的主要来源文本，重点依据 1.3 节抽取七层下钻框架、动态韧性与模型验证要求。"
    },
    {
      "source_id": "article_cognitive_os_synthesis_001",
      "title": "Wantsong认知操作系统",
      "author": "Wantsong",
      "date": "unknown",
      "source_type": "synthesis_note",
      "file_path": "C:\\Users\\wangq\\Documents\\Codex\\knowledge-vault\\rules\\cognitive-science\\综合认知模型\\Wantsong认知操作系统.md",
      "related_models": ["qpi", "intellectual_archaeology"],
      "source_status": "derived_synthesis",
      "notes": "既有应用说明和模型化表达，用于补充 QPI 在流程中的位置、思想考古的最小充分原则和操作边界。"
    }
  ]
}
````

===== FILE: sources/source_excerpts.json =====

- Original path: `sources/source_excerpts.json`
- SHA256: `5ebe3942e8127de701cb393e818f5670e9590b03a465a49b620f1458f76e78ef`

````json
{
  "source_excerpts": [
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_qpi_primary_spectrum_001",
      "source_id": "article_qpi_primary_001",
      "related_model_id": "qpi",
      "excerpt_type": "definition",
      "summary": "QPI 的核心分类不是难度分级，而是按照核心匮乏物区分提问、难题和课题。",
      "used_for": ["one_sentence_definition", "core_mechanism", "output_types"],
      "quote_status": "exact",
      "raw_excerpt": "我们将这三条光谱命名为：提问 (Question)、难题 (Problem) 与 课题 (Issue)。区分它们的关键，不在于其表象的规模大小，而在于其内核中 “核心匮乏物 (Core Scarcity)” 的差异。",
      "source_location": "1. 光谱层：QPI 三元结构，约第 48 行",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "来自 QPI 原文第一章。"
    },
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_qpi_primary_question_001",
      "source_id": "article_qpi_primary_001",
      "related_model_id": "qpi",
      "excerpt_type": "taxonomy",
      "summary": "提问对应数据匮乏，应通过搜索、检索、自动化和标准化信息流处理。",
      "used_for": ["core_mechanism", "call_when", "regression_cases"],
      "quote_status": "exact",
      "raw_excerpt": "在这一层级，世界是简单或线性因果的。解决“提问”不需要创造新的路径，也不需要协调价值观的冲突，只需要执行搜索或检索的动作。",
      "source_location": "1.1 光谱 A：提问，约第 59 行",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "用于定义 Q 类输入和正例。"
    },
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_qpi_primary_problem_001",
      "source_id": "article_qpi_primary_001",
      "related_model_id": "qpi",
      "excerpt_type": "taxonomy",
      "summary": "难题对应路径、方法和资源匮乏；目标清晰但桥梁断裂，理论上可通过工程求解闭环。",
      "used_for": ["core_mechanism", "call_when", "regression_cases"],
      "quote_status": "exact",
      "raw_excerpt": "与“提问”不同，“难题”不仅仅是信息的缺失。我们清楚地知道现在的状态（A点），也无比渴望到达理想的状态（B点），但我们发现连接A与B的桥梁断裂了，或者根本不存在现成的道路。",
      "source_location": "1.2 光谱 B：难题，约第 65 行",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "用于定义 P 类输入和正例。"
    },
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_qpi_primary_issue_001",
      "source_id": "article_qpi_primary_001",
      "related_model_id": "qpi",
      "excerpt_type": "taxonomy",
      "summary": "课题对应确定性因果与共识匮乏；不追求终结式解决，而追求动态平衡与演化。",
      "used_for": ["core_mechanism", "do_not_call_when", "regression_cases"],
      "quote_status": "exact",
      "raw_excerpt": "对于“课题”，我们追求的不是完结，而是系统的动态平衡与演化。",
      "source_location": "1.3 光谱 C：课题，约第 82 行",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "用于定义 I 类输入、误用和边界。"
    },
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_qpi_primary_pathology_reduction_001",
      "source_id": "article_qpi_primary_001",
      "related_model_id": "qpi",
      "excerpt_type": "boundary_rule",
      "summary": "暴力降维通常来自权力上位者，将系统性课题压缩成具体执行难题以规避系统责任。",
      "used_for": ["common_misuses", "failure_modes", "regression_cases"],
      "quote_status": "exact",
      "raw_excerpt": "这通常来自权力的上位者。当面对一个复杂的、系统性的“课题 (Issue)”时，承认其复杂性意味着承认管理者在系统设计上的无能或失职。",
      "source_location": "3.2 病理学：暴力降维，约第 160 行",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "用于 QPI 误用和防降维测试。"
    },
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_qpi_primary_pathology_inflation_001",
      "source_id": "article_qpi_primary_001",
      "related_model_id": "qpi",
      "excerpt_type": "boundary_rule",
      "summary": "恶意升维通常来自执行层，将职责范围内的具体难题放大为不可抗力课题。",
      "used_for": ["common_misuses", "failure_modes", "regression_cases"],
      "quote_status": "exact",
      "raw_excerpt": "这通常来自权力的下位者或执行层。当面对一个具体的、属于自己职责范围内的“难题 (Problem)”时，为了掩盖自身的失误或懒惰，执行者会试图将这个 P 恶意放大为一个不可抗力的 I。",
      "source_location": "3.2 病理学：恶意升维，约第 170 行",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "用于 QPI 误用和防升维测试。"
    },
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_qpi_cognitive_os_application_001",
      "source_id": "article_cognitive_os_synthesis_001",
      "related_model_id": "qpi",
      "excerpt_type": "application_rule",
      "summary": "QPI 在认知操作系统中位于问题定义阶段，用于先确认问题拥有者、来源和时间尺度，再做三元定性。",
      "used_for": ["pipeline_position", "input_types", "selection_rules"],
      "quote_status": "condensed",
      "raw_excerpt": "扫除前置迷雾后，使用 Wantsong QPI 统一理论 对问题进行精准定性，直接决定后续的资源调度与干预范式。",
      "source_location": "2.2 光谱定位：QPI 三元定性，约第 115 行",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "这是综合文档中的应用层表达，Markdown 标记已压缩，不作为原始定义唯一来源。"
    },
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_ia_primary_definition_001",
      "source_id": "article_intellectual_archaeology_primary_001",
      "related_model_id": "intellectual_archaeology",
      "excerpt_type": "definition",
      "summary": "思想考古学是一种严谨艰苦的智力活动，要求从表层现象层层下钻到哲学基岩。",
      "used_for": ["one_sentence_definition", "core_question", "core_mechanism"],
      "quote_status": "exact",
      "raw_excerpt": "工坊的日常运作是在“炼金”，那么其成功的根基，则深植于一项更为严谨、更为艰苦的智力活动——我们称之为 “思想考古学”（Intellectual Archaeology）。",
      "source_location": "1.3 建模的深度：作为思想考古的多层框架，约第 66 行",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "来自原文 1.3 节开头。"
    },
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_ia_primary_layers_001",
      "source_id": "article_intellectual_archaeology_primary_001",
      "related_model_id": "intellectual_archaeology",
      "excerpt_type": "mechanism",
      "summary": "思想考古学以七层同心圆下钻：应用层、领域层、过程层、目的层、核心机理层、人类能力层、哲学基岩层。",
      "used_for": ["core_mechanism", "output_types", "regression_cases"],
      "quote_status": "condensed",
      "raw_excerpt": "我们构建的，是一个七层同心圆式的模型：第一层（应用层）...第七层（哲学基岩层）：问题模型。",
      "source_location": "1.3 七层同心圆模型，约第 70-80 行",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "已压缩原文七条列表，因此 quote_status=condensed；完整文本见 source article。"
    },
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_ia_primary_resilience_001",
      "source_id": "article_intellectual_archaeology_primary_001",
      "related_model_id": "intellectual_archaeology",
      "excerpt_type": "value_claim",
      "summary": "思想考古的价值在于让模型拥有稳定深刻的内核和灵活适应变化的外壳，从而提升动态韧性。",
      "used_for": ["call_when", "stability_profile", "productization_notes"],
      "quote_status": "exact",
      "raw_excerpt": "一个模型的价值，不在于其永不改变，而在于其拥有一个稳定、深刻的“内核”，以及一个能够灵活适应变化的“外壳”。思想考古的深度，直接决定了这个内核的稳固程度。",
      "source_location": "1.3 动态韧性说明，约第 88 行",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "用于说明何时调用思想考古。"
    },
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_ia_cognitive_os_minimum_depth_001",
      "source_id": "article_cognitive_os_synthesis_001",
      "related_model_id": "intellectual_archaeology",
      "excerpt_type": "boundary_rule",
      "summary": "思想考古容易过度挖掘，必须遵守最小充分下潜原则：继续下潜不再改变判断和行动时停止。",
      "used_for": ["do_not_call_when", "common_misuses", "failure_modes", "regression_cases"],
      "quote_status": "exact",
      "raw_excerpt": "思想考古极易导致过度挖掘。并非所有问题都需要下潜到“哲学基岩”。下潜的唯一停止标准是：是否足以改变判断和行动？",
      "source_location": "3.1 纵向下潜：思想考古与最小充分原则，约第 166 行",
      "confidence": "medium",
      "notes": "来自综合应用文档，作为产品化边界规则。"
    },
    {
      "excerpt_id": "excerpt_ia_primary_validation_001",
      "source_id": "article_intellectual_archaeology_primary_001",
      "related_model_id": "intellectual_archaeology",
      "excerpt_type": "validation_rule",
      "summary": "思想考古产出的模型必须经过内部有效性、动态压力和外部有效性验证，不能只依靠内部自洽。",
      "used_for": ["regression_status", "failure_modes", "productization_notes"],
      "quote_status": "exact",
      "raw_excerpt": "内部逻辑的自洽，绝不等于外部现实的有效。一枚在无风实验室里指向精准的罗盘，未必能经受住真实海洋中磁暴的考验。",
      "source_location": "第四幕：验证，约第 215 行",
      "confidence": "high",
      "notes": "来自第四幕验证段落。"
    }
  ]
}
````

===== FILE: tests/regression_cases.json =====

- Original path: `tests/regression_cases.json`
- SHA256: `9f0cbcb9453ab2f362c95d3baf523c6bd8960b0dd82ec5e851dfecb926ccd4ac`

````json
{
  "regression_cases": [
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_question_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我不知道这次服务器宕机的错误码是什么，也不知道日志在哪里。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为提问，核心匮乏物是数据，建议先检索日志和错误码。", "failure_signal": "把它升维为组织课题，或直接给出复杂治理建议。", "expected_output_elements": ["classification=question", "dominant_scarcity=data", "recommended_next_step=检索"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "question", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "data", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["problem_owner", "scarcity_profile", "evidence_gap"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "Q 类正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_question_002", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "竞争对手上个月的定价策略我没有资料，先帮我判断这是什么缺口。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为提问，缺少事实资料。", "failure_signal": "进入思想考古或组织治理。", "expected_output_elements": ["question", "data_scarcity=high"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "question", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "data", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["classification_confidence", "recommended_next_step"], "forbidden_elements": ["七层下钻"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "Q 类正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_question_003", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我只是不知道季度报表在哪里，这算不算复杂问题？", "expected_behavior": "应识别为提问或 no_call 边界，建议检索位置，不做深层分析。", "failure_signal": "把它解释成系统性课题。", "expected_output_elements": ["data_scarcity=high", "recommended_next_step=检索"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "question", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "data", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["classification", "evidence_gap"], "forbidden_elements": ["哲学基岩"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "轻量 Q 类。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_problem_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我们知道目标是三个月内提升留存，但现有团队缺少增长实验方法和数据分析资源。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为难题，核心匮乏物是路径、方法与资源。", "failure_signal": "只要求团队开会达成共识，忽略路径和资源缺口。", "expected_output_elements": ["classification=problem", "dominant_scarcity=path_resource"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "problem", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "path_resource", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["recommended_next_step=工程拆解"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "P 类正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_problem_002", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我们要把模型库做出来，目标清楚，但不知道文件结构、schema 和验证脚本怎么排。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为难题，缺路径和工程拆解。", "failure_signal": "误判为课题或哲学问题。", "expected_output_elements": ["problem", "path_or_resource_scarcity=high"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "problem", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "path_resource", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["problem_owner", "recommended_next_step"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "工程路径正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_problem_003", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "销售团队知道要触达老客户，但缺少名单清洗流程和跟进节奏。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为难题，建议工程拆解和资源配置。", "failure_signal": "把它归为价值观冲突。", "expected_output_elements": ["problem", "工程拆解"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "problem", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "path_resource", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["scarcity_profile"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "P 类正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_issue_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "公司各部门对增长目标、品牌定位和用户价值完全没有共识，每个方案都会引发新的抵抗。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为课题，核心匮乏物是共识、确定性与动态秩序。", "failure_signal": "把它简化成某个员工执行力不足或单一预算不足。", "expected_output_elements": ["classification=issue", "dominant_scarcity=consensus_order"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "issue", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["misclassification_risk"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "I 类正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_issue_002", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "长期主义和季度 KPI 反复冲突，团队每次都回到短期动作。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为课题或 mixed 偏 issue，指出时间尺度冲突和共识秩序缺口。", "failure_signal": "只给执行清单。", "expected_output_elements": ["issue", "time_scale=mixed"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "issue", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["time_scale", "problem_source"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "组织时间尺度课题。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_issue_003", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "教育资源不公平不是一个项目能终结的，但我们需要判断该怎么定义它。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为课题，强调动态治理而非终结式解决。", "failure_signal": "承诺单一解决方案。", "expected_output_elements": ["issue", "动态平衡"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "issue", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["recommended_next_step=共识协调"], "forbidden_elements": ["一次性解决"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "社会系统课题。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_boundary_mixed_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "用户流失率升高，既缺少分群数据，也不确定是产品路径问题还是品牌信任问题。", "expected_behavior": "应先标出混合状态，建议补齐数据后再判断主导匮乏物。", "failure_signal": "直接断言这是课题或难题，且不给出证据缺口。", "expected_output_elements": ["classification=mixed", "evidence_gap"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "mixed", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "mixed", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["evidence_gap", "dominant_scarcity"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "mixed 边界。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_boundary_mixed_002", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "产品上线失败，可能是缺数据、缺发布流程，也可能是团队对价值主张不一致。", "expected_behavior": "应标 mixed，并要求补充证据以判断主导匮乏物。", "failure_signal": "强行单标签。", "expected_output_elements": ["mixed", "补充上下文"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "mixed", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "mixed", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["scarcity_profile"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "三类匮乏物混合。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_boundary_mixed_003", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "团队说这是战略课题，但实际只看到客户跟进表长期没人维护。", "expected_behavior": "应警惕恶意升维，先切回可验证的路径/责任问题。", "failure_signal": "接受战略课题叙事。", "expected_output_elements": ["恶意升维", "problem"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "problem", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "path_resource", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["misclassification_risk"], "forbidden_elements": ["哲学基岩"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "边界加误用。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_misuse_inflation_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "misuse", "input": "我没有跟进客户不是我的问题，是大环境不好，客户都没预算。", "expected_behavior": "应警惕恶意升维，要求从宏大 Issue 中切割出当前可执行、可衡量的 Problem。", "failure_signal": "完全接受大环境叙事，放弃执行责任拆解。", "expected_output_elements": ["恶意升维", "具体障碍"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "problem", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "path_resource", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["problem_source", "misclassification_risk"], "forbidden_elements": ["不可抗力所以无需行动"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "恶意升维。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_misuse_reduction_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "misuse", "input": "组织创新乏力就是员工不够努力，给他们加 KPI 就行。", "expected_behavior": "应识别暴力降维，提示系统性课题被压缩成个人执行难题。", "failure_signal": "接受单一执行力解释。", "expected_output_elements": ["暴力降维", "issue"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "issue", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["misclassification_risk"], "forbidden_elements": ["只加 KPI"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "暴力降维。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_no_call_direct_edit_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "no_call", "input": "请直接把这句话改得更顺，不要分析原因。", "expected_behavior": "应 no_call，不进入 QPI 分析。", "failure_signal": "输出问题类型判断。", "expected_output_elements": ["classification=no_call"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["qpi", "intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "no_call", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["recommended_next_step=不调用"], "forbidden_elements": ["dominant_scarcity=data"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "纯改写 no-call。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_selector_gate_fact_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "selector_gate", "input": "只查一下 QPI 这三个字母是什么意思，不要展开。", "expected_behavior": "selector 应低分或 no_call，思想考古必须被拒绝。", "failure_signal": "因为出现 QPI 或模型词而召回 IA。", "expected_output_elements": ["no_call"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "no_call", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["rejected_models"], "forbidden_elements": ["七层"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "selector 防误召回。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_pipeline_before_ia_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "pipeline", "input": "我们不知道这是执行路径问题还是组织共识问题，后面可能要深挖。", "expected_behavior": "应先调用 QPI，再决定是否进入思想考古。", "failure_signal": "直接调用思想考古。", "expected_output_elements": ["qpi first"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "mixed", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "mixed", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["next_model_candidates"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "QPI-before-IA pipeline gate。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_positive_deep_modeling_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我们要把专家对课堂质量的直觉变成一个可复用评价模型，但不知道底层教育目的和学习机制如何支撑指标。", "expected_behavior": "应调用思想考古学，下潜到核心机理层，标出验证需求。", "failure_signal": "只总结表层指标。", "expected_output_elements": ["should_call=true", "recommended_max_depth=core_mechanism"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["stop_reason", "validation_needed"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "重型正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_positive_resilience_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "positive", "input": "新的教学工具出现后，我们想知道现有评价模型需要局部调整还是必须重建底层教育模型。", "expected_behavior": "应区分稳定内核和可变外壳，判断冲击层级。", "failure_signal": "动辄推倒全部模型。", "expected_output_elements": ["稳定内核", "冲击层级"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "purpose", "minimum_required_elements": ["layers_to_analyze", "action_implication"], "forbidden_elements": ["默认哲学基岩"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "中重型正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_positive_model_extraction_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我要从一篇长文章中抽取可复用认知模型，需要判断它的机制、边界和底层假设。", "expected_behavior": "应调用思想考古，最多到核心机理层或人类能力层。", "failure_signal": "只做摘要或直接上哲学。", "expected_output_elements": ["模型抽取", "recommended_max_depth"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["assumptions_by_layer", "validation_needed"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "模型抽取场景。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_positive_heavy_failure_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "positive", "input": "这个战略方案连续三次失败，但每次复盘都只停留在执行动作，我们怀疑底层目的和机制错了。", "expected_behavior": "应调用，允许下潜到目的层或核心机理层。", "failure_signal": "只给执行建议。", "expected_output_elements": ["entry_reason", "core_mechanism"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["no_deeper_reason"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "重型失败复盘。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_positive_heavy_philosophy_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我们正在定义问题本身的模型，涉及认知主体和现实映射的关系。", "expected_behavior": "可下潜到哲学基岩层，但必须说明为何需要。", "failure_signal": "不说明理由就上哲学。", "expected_output_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock", "entry_reason"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "philosophical_bedrock", "minimum_required_elements": ["stop_reason", "action_implication"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "少数可到哲学基岩的正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_boundary_medium_purpose_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "我们知道课堂评价指标，但不知道它服务的教育目的是否一致。", "expected_behavior": "应下潜到目的层后停止。", "failure_signal": "自动下潜到哲学基岩。", "expected_output_elements": ["recommended_max_depth=purpose"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "purpose", "minimum_required_elements": ["no_deeper_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "中型目的层。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_boundary_medium_process_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "流程卡住了，我们需要理解实际业务过程，而不是重写价值观。", "expected_behavior": "最多到过程层，说明停止理由。", "failure_signal": "展开人类能力或哲学层。", "expected_output_elements": ["recommended_max_depth=process"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "process", "minimum_required_elements": ["stop_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["human_capability", "philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "过程层停止。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_boundary_medium_core_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "我们已经有流程图，但不知道学习机制是否支撑这个流程。", "expected_behavior": "可下潜到核心机理层，不应继续到哲学基岩。", "failure_signal": "无条件七层全开。", "expected_output_elements": ["core_mechanism", "no_deeper_reason"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["validation_needed"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "核心机理层停止。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_no_call_fact_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "no_call", "input": "我只是想知道这篇文章里有没有提到某个工具名称。", "expected_behavior": "不应调用思想考古，应建议直接检索。", "failure_signal": "强行展开七层哲学分析。", "expected_output_elements": ["should_call=false"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["entry_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["七层"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "事实检索 no-call。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_no_call_edit_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "no_call", "input": "请把这段话润色一下，不要深入分析。", "expected_behavior": "不调用。", "failure_signal": "展开底层假设。", "expected_output_elements": ["should_call=false"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["no_deeper_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["底层假设"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "润色 no-call。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_no_call_light_execution_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "no_call", "input": "按钮文案写错了，直接改成保存即可。", "expected_behavior": "不调用。", "failure_signal": "重新定义用户关系。", "expected_output_elements": ["should_call=false"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["action_implication"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "轻量执行 no-call。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_misuse_philosophizing_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "misuse", "input": "我们已经知道方案只需要修一个按钮文案，但还想顺便从哲学基岩重新定义用户关系。", "expected_behavior": "应拒绝过度下钻，说明继续下潜不会改变判断或行动。", "failure_signal": "接受无必要的哲学化扩展。", "expected_output_elements": ["停止下钻", "行动不改变"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["no_deeper_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "过度哲学化。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_misuse_no_validation_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "misuse", "input": "我们用七层结构写出一个很自洽的模型，准备直接上线，不做红队、数据对撞或专家盲审。", "expected_behavior": "应指出内部自洽不等于现实有效，要求补充验证机制。", "failure_signal": "把七层结构本身视为充分验证。", "expected_output_elements": ["validation_needed"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["validation_needed"], "forbidden_elements": ["直接上线"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "无验证误用。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_misuse_layer_jump_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "misuse", "input": "我们还没弄清应用层事实，就想直接讨论哲学基岩。", "expected_behavior": "应阻止层级跳跃，从应用层事实和证据缺口开始。", "failure_signal": "跳过中间层级。", "expected_output_elements": ["layers_to_analyze", "application"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "application", "minimum_required_elements": ["stop_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "层级跳跃误用。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_selector_gate_qpi_first_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "selector_gate", "input": "这个问题到底是缺数据、缺路径还是缺共识？", "expected_behavior": "selector 应先选 QPI，不应直接选思想考古。", "failure_signal": "IA 抢在 QPI 前。", "expected_output_elements": ["qpi first"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["rejected_models"], "forbidden_elements": ["selected IA"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "QPI-before-IA gate。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_selector_gate_no_heavy_signal_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "selector_gate", "input": "底层这个词怎么翻译？只要一个英文。", "expected_behavior": "虽然有底层一词，也不应召回思想考古。", "failure_signal": "关键词误召回。", "expected_output_elements": ["rejected_models"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["negative trigger"], "forbidden_elements": ["七层"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "关键词误召回防护。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_pipeline_after_qpi_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "pipeline", "input": "QPI 已判断为中重型课题，且需要抽取底层机制和验证路径。", "expected_behavior": "IA 可作为 QPI 后续模型被调用。", "failure_signal": "在 QPI 放行后仍拒绝。", "expected_output_elements": ["QPI 后续", "should_call=true"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["entry_reason"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "QPI 后续 pipeline。"}
  ]
}
````

===== FILE: tests/qpi.regression.json =====

- Original path: `tests/qpi.regression.json`
- SHA256: `362ead2035aa6dece16e8abbeb94d6e44b85cabeae252299bd278e58052c2072`

````json
{
  "model_id": "qpi",
  "regression_cases": [
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_question_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我不知道这次服务器宕机的错误码是什么，也不知道日志在哪里。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为提问，核心匮乏物是数据，建议先检索日志和错误码。", "failure_signal": "把它升维为组织课题，或直接给出复杂治理建议。", "expected_output_elements": ["classification=question", "dominant_scarcity=data", "recommended_next_step=检索"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "question", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "data", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["problem_owner", "scarcity_profile", "evidence_gap"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "Q 类正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_question_002", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "竞争对手上个月的定价策略我没有资料，先帮我判断这是什么缺口。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为提问，缺少事实资料。", "failure_signal": "进入思想考古或组织治理。", "expected_output_elements": ["question", "data_scarcity=high"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "question", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "data", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["classification_confidence", "recommended_next_step"], "forbidden_elements": ["七层下钻"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "Q 类正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_question_003", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我只是不知道季度报表在哪里，这算不算复杂问题？", "expected_behavior": "应识别为提问或 no_call 边界，建议检索位置，不做深层分析。", "failure_signal": "把它解释成系统性课题。", "expected_output_elements": ["data_scarcity=high", "recommended_next_step=检索"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "question", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "data", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["classification", "evidence_gap"], "forbidden_elements": ["哲学基岩"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "轻量 Q 类。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_problem_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我们知道目标是三个月内提升留存，但现有团队缺少增长实验方法和数据分析资源。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为难题，核心匮乏物是路径、方法与资源。", "failure_signal": "只要求团队开会达成共识，忽略路径和资源缺口。", "expected_output_elements": ["classification=problem", "dominant_scarcity=path_resource"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "problem", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "path_resource", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["recommended_next_step=工程拆解"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "P 类正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_problem_002", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我们要把模型库做出来，目标清楚，但不知道文件结构、schema 和验证脚本怎么排。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为难题，缺路径和工程拆解。", "failure_signal": "误判为课题或哲学问题。", "expected_output_elements": ["problem", "path_or_resource_scarcity=high"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "problem", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "path_resource", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["problem_owner", "recommended_next_step"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "工程路径正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_problem_003", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "销售团队知道要触达老客户，但缺少名单清洗流程和跟进节奏。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为难题，建议工程拆解和资源配置。", "failure_signal": "把它归为价值观冲突。", "expected_output_elements": ["problem", "工程拆解"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "problem", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "path_resource", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["scarcity_profile"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "P 类正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_issue_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "公司各部门对增长目标、品牌定位和用户价值完全没有共识，每个方案都会引发新的抵抗。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为课题，核心匮乏物是共识、确定性与动态秩序。", "failure_signal": "把它简化成某个员工执行力不足或单一预算不足。", "expected_output_elements": ["classification=issue", "dominant_scarcity=consensus_order"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "issue", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["misclassification_risk"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "I 类正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_issue_002", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "长期主义和季度 KPI 反复冲突，团队每次都回到短期动作。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为课题或 mixed 偏 issue，指出时间尺度冲突和共识秩序缺口。", "failure_signal": "只给执行清单。", "expected_output_elements": ["issue", "time_scale=mixed"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "issue", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["time_scale", "problem_source"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "组织时间尺度课题。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_positive_issue_003", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "positive", "input": "教育资源不公平不是一个项目能终结的，但我们需要判断该怎么定义它。", "expected_behavior": "应识别为课题，强调动态治理而非终结式解决。", "failure_signal": "承诺单一解决方案。", "expected_output_elements": ["issue", "动态平衡"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "issue", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["recommended_next_step=共识协调"], "forbidden_elements": ["一次性解决"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "社会系统课题。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_boundary_mixed_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "用户流失率升高，既缺少分群数据，也不确定是产品路径问题还是品牌信任问题。", "expected_behavior": "应先标出混合状态，建议补齐数据后再判断主导匮乏物。", "failure_signal": "直接断言这是课题或难题，且不给出证据缺口。", "expected_output_elements": ["classification=mixed", "evidence_gap"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "mixed", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "mixed", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["evidence_gap", "dominant_scarcity"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "mixed 边界。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_boundary_mixed_002", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "产品上线失败，可能是缺数据、缺发布流程，也可能是团队对价值主张不一致。", "expected_behavior": "应标 mixed，并要求补充证据以判断主导匮乏物。", "failure_signal": "强行单标签。", "expected_output_elements": ["mixed", "补充上下文"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "mixed", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "mixed", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["scarcity_profile"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "三类匮乏物混合。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_boundary_mixed_003", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "团队说这是战略课题，但实际只看到客户跟进表长期没人维护。", "expected_behavior": "应警惕恶意升维，先切回可验证的路径/责任问题。", "failure_signal": "接受战略课题叙事。", "expected_output_elements": ["恶意升维", "problem"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "problem", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "path_resource", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["misclassification_risk"], "forbidden_elements": ["哲学基岩"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "边界加误用。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_misuse_inflation_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "misuse", "input": "我没有跟进客户不是我的问题，是大环境不好，客户都没预算。", "expected_behavior": "应警惕恶意升维，要求从宏大 Issue 中切割出当前可执行、可衡量的 Problem。", "failure_signal": "完全接受大环境叙事，放弃执行责任拆解。", "expected_output_elements": ["恶意升维", "具体障碍"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "problem", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "path_resource", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["problem_source", "misclassification_risk"], "forbidden_elements": ["不可抗力所以无需行动"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "恶意升维。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_misuse_reduction_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "misuse", "input": "组织创新乏力就是员工不够努力，给他们加 KPI 就行。", "expected_behavior": "应识别暴力降维，提示系统性课题被压缩成个人执行难题。", "failure_signal": "接受单一执行力解释。", "expected_output_elements": ["暴力降维", "issue"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "issue", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "consensus_order", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["misclassification_risk"], "forbidden_elements": ["只加 KPI"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "暴力降维。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_no_call_direct_edit_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "no_call", "input": "请直接把这句话改得更顺，不要分析原因。", "expected_behavior": "应 no_call，不进入 QPI 分析。", "failure_signal": "输出问题类型判断。", "expected_output_elements": ["classification=no_call"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["qpi", "intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "no_call", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["recommended_next_step=不调用"], "forbidden_elements": ["dominant_scarcity=data"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "纯改写 no-call。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_selector_gate_fact_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "selector_gate", "input": "只查一下 QPI 这三个字母是什么意思，不要展开。", "expected_behavior": "selector 应低分或 no_call，思想考古必须被拒绝。", "failure_signal": "因为出现 QPI 或模型词而召回 IA。", "expected_output_elements": ["no_call"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "no_call", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["rejected_models"], "forbidden_elements": ["七层"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "selector 防误召回。"},
    {"case_id": "case_qpi_pipeline_before_ia_001", "model_id": "qpi", "case_type": "pipeline", "input": "我们不知道这是执行路径问题还是组织共识问题，后面可能要深挖。", "expected_behavior": "应先调用 QPI，再决定是否进入思想考古。", "failure_signal": "直接调用思想考古。", "expected_output_elements": ["qpi first"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "mixed", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "mixed", "expected_max_depth": "not_applicable", "minimum_required_elements": ["next_model_candidates"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "QPI-before-IA pipeline gate。"}
  ]
}
````

===== FILE: tests/intellectual_archaeology.regression.json =====

- Original path: `tests/intellectual_archaeology.regression.json`
- SHA256: `f6f8a3fe60dbdb74fef53ebe6a297197f45422bc0b36e9aa5c13308f8033912b`

````json
{
  "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology",
  "regression_cases": [
    {"case_id": "case_ia_positive_deep_modeling_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我们要把专家对课堂质量的直觉变成一个可复用评价模型，但不知道底层教育目的和学习机制如何支撑指标。", "expected_behavior": "应调用思想考古学，下潜到核心机理层，标出验证需求。", "failure_signal": "只总结表层指标。", "expected_output_elements": ["should_call=true", "recommended_max_depth=core_mechanism"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["stop_reason", "validation_needed"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "重型正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_positive_resilience_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "positive", "input": "新的教学工具出现后，我们想知道现有评价模型需要局部调整还是必须重建底层教育模型。", "expected_behavior": "应区分稳定内核和可变外壳，判断冲击层级。", "failure_signal": "动辄推倒全部模型。", "expected_output_elements": ["稳定内核", "冲击层级"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "purpose", "minimum_required_elements": ["layers_to_analyze", "action_implication"], "forbidden_elements": ["默认哲学基岩"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "中重型正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_positive_model_extraction_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我要从一篇长文章中抽取可复用认知模型，需要判断它的机制、边界和底层假设。", "expected_behavior": "应调用思想考古，最多到核心机理层或人类能力层。", "failure_signal": "只做摘要或直接上哲学。", "expected_output_elements": ["模型抽取", "recommended_max_depth"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["assumptions_by_layer", "validation_needed"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "模型抽取场景。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_positive_heavy_failure_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "positive", "input": "这个战略方案连续三次失败，但每次复盘都只停留在执行动作，我们怀疑底层目的和机制错了。", "expected_behavior": "应调用，允许下潜到目的层或核心机理层。", "failure_signal": "只给执行建议。", "expected_output_elements": ["entry_reason", "core_mechanism"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["no_deeper_reason"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "重型失败复盘。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_positive_heavy_philosophy_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "positive", "input": "我们正在定义问题本身的模型，涉及认知主体和现实映射的关系。", "expected_behavior": "可下潜到哲学基岩层，但必须说明为何需要。", "failure_signal": "不说明理由就上哲学。", "expected_output_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock", "entry_reason"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "philosophical_bedrock", "minimum_required_elements": ["stop_reason", "action_implication"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "少数可到哲学基岩的正例。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_boundary_medium_purpose_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "我们知道课堂评价指标，但不知道它服务的教育目的是否一致。", "expected_behavior": "应下潜到目的层后停止。", "failure_signal": "自动下潜到哲学基岩。", "expected_output_elements": ["recommended_max_depth=purpose"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "purpose", "minimum_required_elements": ["no_deeper_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "中型目的层。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_boundary_medium_process_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "流程卡住了，我们需要理解实际业务过程，而不是重写价值观。", "expected_behavior": "最多到过程层，说明停止理由。", "failure_signal": "展开人类能力或哲学层。", "expected_output_elements": ["recommended_max_depth=process"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "process", "minimum_required_elements": ["stop_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["human_capability", "philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "过程层停止。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_boundary_medium_core_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "boundary", "input": "我们已经有流程图，但不知道学习机制是否支撑这个流程。", "expected_behavior": "可下潜到核心机理层，不应继续到哲学基岩。", "failure_signal": "无条件七层全开。", "expected_output_elements": ["core_mechanism", "no_deeper_reason"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["validation_needed"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "核心机理层停止。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_no_call_fact_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "no_call", "input": "我只是想知道这篇文章里有没有提到某个工具名称。", "expected_behavior": "不应调用思想考古，应建议直接检索。", "failure_signal": "强行展开七层哲学分析。", "expected_output_elements": ["should_call=false"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["entry_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["七层"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "事实检索 no-call。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_no_call_edit_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "no_call", "input": "请把这段话润色一下，不要深入分析。", "expected_behavior": "不调用。", "failure_signal": "展开底层假设。", "expected_output_elements": ["should_call=false"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["no_deeper_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["底层假设"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "润色 no-call。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_no_call_light_execution_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "no_call", "input": "按钮文案写错了，直接改成保存即可。", "expected_behavior": "不调用。", "failure_signal": "重新定义用户关系。", "expected_output_elements": ["should_call=false"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["action_implication"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "轻量执行 no-call。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_misuse_philosophizing_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "misuse", "input": "我们已经知道方案只需要修一个按钮文案，但还想顺便从哲学基岩重新定义用户关系。", "expected_behavior": "应拒绝过度下钻，说明继续下潜不会改变判断或行动。", "failure_signal": "接受无必要的哲学化扩展。", "expected_output_elements": ["停止下钻", "行动不改变"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["no_deeper_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "过度哲学化。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_misuse_no_validation_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "misuse", "input": "我们用七层结构写出一个很自洽的模型，准备直接上线，不做红队、数据对撞或专家盲审。", "expected_behavior": "应指出内部自洽不等于现实有效，要求补充验证机制。", "failure_signal": "把七层结构本身视为充分验证。", "expected_output_elements": ["validation_needed"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["validation_needed"], "forbidden_elements": ["直接上线"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "无验证误用。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_misuse_layer_jump_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "misuse", "input": "我们还没弄清应用层事实，就想直接讨论哲学基岩。", "expected_behavior": "应阻止层级跳跃，从应用层事实和证据缺口开始。", "failure_signal": "跳过中间层级。", "expected_output_elements": ["layers_to_analyze", "application"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "application", "minimum_required_elements": ["stop_reason"], "forbidden_elements": ["philosophical_bedrock"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "层级跳跃误用。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_selector_gate_qpi_first_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "selector_gate", "input": "这个问题到底是缺数据、缺路径还是缺共识？", "expected_behavior": "selector 应先选 QPI，不应直接选思想考古。", "failure_signal": "IA 抢在 QPI 前。", "expected_output_elements": ["qpi first"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "qpi", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["rejected_models"], "forbidden_elements": ["selected IA"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "QPI-before-IA gate。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_selector_gate_no_heavy_signal_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "selector_gate", "input": "底层这个词怎么翻译？只要一个英文。", "expected_behavior": "虽然有底层一词，也不应召回思想考古。", "failure_signal": "关键词误召回。", "expected_output_elements": ["rejected_models"], "should_call_model": false, "expected_primary_model": "none", "negative_expected_models": ["intellectual_archaeology"], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "no_call", "minimum_required_elements": ["negative trigger"], "forbidden_elements": ["七层"], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "关键词误召回防护。"},
    {"case_id": "case_ia_pipeline_after_qpi_001", "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology", "case_type": "pipeline", "input": "QPI 已判断为中重型课题，且需要抽取底层机制和验证路径。", "expected_behavior": "IA 可作为 QPI 后续模型被调用。", "failure_signal": "在 QPI 放行后仍拒绝。", "expected_output_elements": ["QPI 后续", "should_call=true"], "should_call_model": true, "expected_primary_model": "intellectual_archaeology", "negative_expected_models": [], "expected_classification": "not_applicable", "expected_dominant_scarcity": "not_applicable", "expected_max_depth": "core_mechanism", "minimum_required_elements": ["entry_reason"], "forbidden_elements": [], "evaluation_mode": "structured", "notes": "QPI 后续 pipeline。"}
  ]
}
````

===== FILE: tests/regression_index.json =====

- Original path: `tests/regression_index.json`
- SHA256: `3dec6527791c81e27f8873bd5cc3db9e169cba79fd2c4cec41ce33c676fdb524`

````json
{
  "index_version": "0.2",
  "last_updated": "2026-06-16",
  "source_of_truth": "per_model_files",
  "aggregate_file": "tests/regression_cases.json",
  "models": [
    {
      "model_id": "qpi",
      "regression_file": "tests/qpi.regression.json",
      "case_count": 17,
      "case_type_counts": {
        "positive": 9,
        "boundary": 3,
        "misuse": 2,
        "no_call": 1,
        "selector_gate": 1,
        "pipeline": 1
      }
    },
    {
      "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology",
      "regression_file": "tests/intellectual_archaeology.regression.json",
      "case_count": 17,
      "case_type_counts": {
        "positive": 5,
        "boundary": 3,
        "misuse": 3,
        "no_call": 3,
        "selector_gate": 2,
        "pipeline": 1
      }
    }
  ]
}
````

===== FILE: selector/selector_rules.json =====

- Original path: `selector/selector_rules.json`
- SHA256: `85e2c6d6815c6a9a3d33b38006d9e7fc40b5eba4509e973ee2e9b565ee9f948f`

````json
{
  "selector_version": "0.2",
  "selection_method": "rule_based_no_llm",
  "global_rules": {
    "negative_trigger_first": true,
    "no_call_threshold": 0.35,
    "qpi_before_ia_gate": true,
    "emit_score_breakdown": true,
    "emit_rejected_model_reasons": true
  },
  "models": [
    {
      "model_id": "qpi",
      "base_score": 50,
      "trigger_keywords": [
        "问题",
        "难题",
        "课题",
        "缺数据",
        "缺路径",
        "缺共识",
        "执行力",
        "大环境",
        "反复发作",
        "系统性",
        "怎么定义"
      ],
      "input_type_matches": [
        "模糊局面",
        "业务问题描述",
        "组织冲突叙述",
        "需求或故障初始表述"
      ],
      "negative_triggers": [
        "只改错别字",
        "翻译",
        "润色",
        "生成图片"
      ],
      "pipeline_position": "problem_definition",
      "selection_priority": 95,
      "routing_notes": "作为默认前置路由模型；如果无法判断问题类型，优先调用 QPI。"
    },
    {
      "model_id": "intellectual_archaeology",
      "base_score": 35,
      "trigger_keywords": [
        "底层假设",
        "第一性原理",
        "哲学基岩",
        "模型深度",
        "专家直觉",
        "隐性知识",
        "动态韧性",
        "七层",
        "思想考古",
        "可复用模型"
      ],
      "input_type_matches": [
        "模型草案",
        "复杂议题",
        "专家隐性判断",
        "需要抽取底层假设的业务方案"
      ],
      "negative_triggers": [
        "只是查找",
        "只要事实",
        "低风险",
        "马上执行",
        "不用解释"
      ],
      "pipeline_position": "modeling_depth_analysis",
      "selection_priority": 80,
      "routing_notes": "通常在 QPI 判断为中重型难题或课题后调用；遇到轻量事实检索应避免调用。"
    }
  ]
}
````

===== FILE: selector/selector_examples.json =====

- Original path: `selector/selector_examples.json`
- SHA256: `eae36650081bf2485ffcdadf4d10f196445d4eb3fdac815921c2c57222faf5de`

````json
{
  "selector_examples": [
    {
      "example_id": "selector_example_qpi_001",
      "input": "我们现在的问题到底是缺数据、缺方法，还是团队没有共识？",
      "recommended_model_ids": ["qpi"],
      "expected_reasons": ["出现 QPI 核心匮乏物触发词", "处于问题定义阶段"],
      "routing_notes": "先做 QPI，再决定是否进入深度建模。"
    },
    {
      "example_id": "selector_example_ia_001",
      "input": "这个模型看起来成立，但我想知道它背后的底层假设和哲学基岩是否稳定。",
      "recommended_model_ids": ["intellectual_archaeology"],
      "expected_reasons": ["出现底层假设和哲学基岩触发词", "目标是模型深度分析"],
      "routing_notes": "调用思想考古学，但应检查是否满足最小充分下潜。"
    },
    {
      "example_id": "selector_example_both_001",
      "input": "用户流失反复出现，我们不知道这是执行路径问题，还是品牌信任和组织共识的深层课题。",
      "recommended_model_ids": ["qpi", "intellectual_archaeology"],
      "expected_reasons": ["先用 QPI 判断主导匮乏物", "如果确认为中重型课题，再用思想考古下钻"],
      "routing_notes": "QPI 应排在前面，思想考古作为后续模型。"
    },
    {
      "example_id": "selector_example_no_call_001",
      "input": "请直接把这句话润色一下，不要深入分析。",
      "recommended_model_ids": [],
      "rejected_model_ids": ["qpi", "intellectual_archaeology"],
      "expected_reasons": ["negative trigger first", "no-call threshold"],
      "routing_notes": "纯改写不应召回 QPI 或思想考古。"
    },
    {
      "example_id": "selector_example_qpi_before_ia_001",
      "input": "这个问题到底是缺数据、缺路径还是缺共识？",
      "recommended_model_ids": ["qpi"],
      "rejected_model_ids": ["intellectual_archaeology"],
      "expected_reasons": ["QPI-before-IA gate"],
      "routing_notes": "问题定义未完成时，思想考古不应抢先召回。"
    }
  ]
}
````

