Assess learning claims during ingest

Type: kb/types/instruction.md

Write the Learning Claims (our opinion) section of an ingest report so a later reader can judge what the source changes in our understanding of learning and adaptation: how its mechanism works, what the evidence supports, and whether it strengthens, limits, or challenges Commonplace's current account. Preserve surprising mechanisms and distinctions even when our vocabulary does not yet accommodate them.

Use this instruction within draft-ingest-report.md when the source's subject or mechanism is learning or adaptation, including a conceptual account with no empirical results. Keep the caller's source boundary, output contract, and occasion rules. This branch adds exactly one report section, placed after Connections Found under the ingest-report type contract, with its paired learning_claims: true frontmatter field, and does not authorize further source collection.

Read Theory refinement as the current comparison basis. The definition is loaded at execution rather than frontloaded here because it is new and expected to change often; do not copy its content into this instruction. The definition governs our use of the term but remains open to challenge by the source.

Write for a reader already acquainted with Commonplace's vocabulary. Use our established terms without reteaching them; explain unfamiliar source terms and consequential differences in meaning.

Procedure:

1. Establish the source's mechanism on its own terms, before mapping it.
2. Relate its important ideas to Commonplace concepts. Make the mapping explicit, so the reader can see what the source adds to, supports, or puts in question in the current account. Where a mapping is partial or no concept fits, explain the difference using the nearest relevant distinction without forcing equivalence. Distinguish our interpretation from the source's claims.
3. Choose the analytical distinctions that matter for this source and the KB's goals. Where relevant, the current account distinguishes using a theory from revising it.
4. Keep each conclusion at the strength of its evidence. A plausible mechanism, an observed improvement, and evidence that the mechanism caused the improvement support different judgments. Missing evidence leaves a question open; it does not establish absence.
5. Write the section and set learning_claims: true in frontmatter. It is sufficient when it makes the source's contribution, its relation to our concepts, and its evidential limits clear, including any reason to revise our concepts. Include only distinctions that change that judgment. Leave unresolved mappings explicit rather than forcing a classification or repairing the KB's theory during ingest.