Link strength is encoded in position and prose

Type: note · Status: seedling

The link contracts framework defines what links should contain (relationship type, context phrase, click-decision support). But it treats all links as equal edges. In practice, links carry different commitment levels — an inline "since [X]" that uses a note as a premise is a stronger connection than a footer "related" entry.

This matters because it creates a weighted graph. The weight affects how agents should traverse, how notes should be scored, and how graph health should be measured.

Strength signals

Position in the document is the strongest signal. A link woven into the argument is load-bearing — the prose breaks if you remove it. A link in the footer "Relevant Notes" section is catalogued but not depended on.

Position Strength Why
Inline, in a premise or argument Strongest The current note's reasoning depends on this link
Inline, in supporting context Strong Referenced as evidence or example
Inline, parenthetical mention Medium Acknowledged but not load-bearing
Footer with context phrase Weak Related, catalogued, but not part of the argument
Footer bare link Weakest Filed without justification

Relationship words in prose refine the signal. The word that introduces a link tells you what role the linked note plays:

Prose pattern Role Strength
"since [X]", "because [Y]" Premise — the linked note is a reason Strongest
"extends", "builds on" Structural — the linked note is a foundation Strong
"contradicts", "but see" Tension — the linked note challenges this Strong (different direction)
"see also", "related to" Association — topical overlap Weak
"cf.", bare link Catalogued — no articulated reason Weakest

The load-bearing test. The simplest way to assess link strength: would the paragraph still make sense if you removed the link? If yes, the link is decorative. If no, it's structural. Structural links are strong; decorative links are weak.

Traversal priority. An agent deciding what to read next should follow strong links before weak ones. A "since [X]" link is almost certainly worth following — the current note depends on it. A footer "related" link is a maybe. This is the practical answer to the navigation decision problem: link strength is a traversal heuristic.

Note scoring. A note's quality score should weight inbound links by strength. Three inline premise links from well-regarded notes say more about a note's value than twenty footer "related" links. This is PageRank with link-weight — and it's the mechanism that prevents the credibility erosion problem (noisy weak links don't inflate scores the way unweighted link counts would).

Quality signals. The ratio of strong to weak links is a graph health signal. A note with mostly strong inbound links is well-integrated into the KB's reasoning. A note with only weak footer links is catalogued but not used. The quality signals note should track this ratio.

/connect guidance. When /connect adds links, it should prefer creating strong connections (inline, with relationship articulation) over weak ones (footer "related"). A strong connection is worth more than three weak ones. This is already implicit in the skill's articulation requirement, but making it explicit could improve connection quality as the KB scales.

Should strength be explicit metadata?

Two options:

Inferred from position and prose. A script parses each markdown file, classifies links by position (inline vs footer) and surrounding words. No new metadata to maintain. But parsing prose for relationship words is fuzzy — "since" might be temporal, not causal.

Explicit in link syntax. Something like [note](./note.md "premise") or a structured footer format. Clean and queryable, but adds ceremony to every link and changes the writing convention.

The inferred approach is probably right for now — position (inline vs footer) is easy to detect, and that alone captures most of the signal. Prose analysis can be added later if the coarser signal isn't enough.

Open questions

  • How much of the strength signal is recoverable from position alone (inline vs footer), without prose analysis?
  • Should /connect explicitly choose between inline and footer placement based on relationship strength, or leave that to the author?
  • Does link strength decay over time? A premise link from a note that's now outdated is weaker than the same link from a current note. Should link strength be static (property of the link) or dynamic (property of the link × source note status)?
  • The arscontexta "specificity test" ("genuine elaboration is specific enough to be wrong") is a link quality gate. Is there a link strength gate — a minimum strength below which a link isn't worth creating?

Relevant Notes:

Topics: