Repair dispositions for defeated claims are an epistemic policy with an option space

Type: ../types/design-proposal.md · Tags: document-system, review-system

Which repairs review may take on a defeated claim is epistemic policy, not review mechanics, and different installations can legitimately want different policies. ADR 066 decided this installation's policy: claims declare one of three modes (universal, statistical, ideal-type) in the claim text, and the full pass repairs mode mismatch through mode-guarded reframes in both directions. What remains undecided here is the cross-installation half — whether repair policy becomes a clause that each installation declares in its own notes collection contract — and one deferred mechanism, drift tracking for the attestations an ideal-type claim's pricing rests on.

Current state (as of 2026-08-19)

  • ADR 066 adopted the single-installation core from this proposal: the three-mode vocabulary and its refuters in kb/notes/COLLECTION.md ("Claim modality"), in-text mode declaration with undeclared-reads-universal, modality-aware premise reading with counterexample-shape annotations in the premise-decomposition gate, and mode-guarded bidirectional reframes in the full-pass instruction. The evidence base — four trigger episodes and a 22-note corpus survey — is recorded in kb/work/popperian-maintenance-episode/ and summarized in the ADR.
  • The adopted policy binds this installation only. Its clauses live in kb/notes/COLLECTION.md and the full-pass instruction. No declaration surface lets another installation select a different policy while reusing the procedure, so a downstream installation that takes the shipped pass receives ADR 066's disposition logic silently. Collection prototypes are creation-time copies and cannot maintain or update an installed contract. No second installation with explanation-first goals exists to demand the parameterization.
  • Pricing attestations are immutable snapshots. An ideal-type claim's routing evidence cites kb/sources/ captures. Repository-input freshness cannot notice an immutable attestation becoming obsolete as external domain practice drifts (an exception becoming ordinary unmarked practice) — the criterion note's re-testing open question. Review pairs carry exactly two tracked inputs (note, criterion); the freshness architecture admits new dependencies as factored (note, dependency) pairs, the direction held open in factored dependency pairs for review freshness, not shipped machinery.

The design space

  1. Collection-contract repair policy. Each installation's notes COLLECTION.md declares which repair dispositions review may take on defeated claims — reframe-to-warranted only, mode-guarded reframes (ADR 066's policy), or keep-as-conjecture-at-declared-stage — and the pass instruction reads the local declaration. Installations with explanation-first goals choose differently from decision-support installations. Operativity: the pass already loads the target collection contract, but no repair-policy parser or branch exists; both the declaration vocabulary and conditional disposition logic must be built. Cost: epistemic-policy proliferation across installations, and a currently fixed instruction becomes conditional on an additional contract clause.
  2. Attestation drift tracking. Register an ideal-type claim's pricing attestations as factored (note, attestation) freshness pairs so domain drift surfaces as input staleness instead of waiting for a noticed counterexample. Rides the factored-dependency-pairs proposal; adopting it here means adopting that machinery for this consumer. The alternative is the ADR 066 status quo: drift is caught only when a pass re-runs the premise gate over the claim's adequacy record.

Free choices

  • The declaration shape (option 1): one controlled value in the local collection contract, or explicit permitted dispositions with compatibility checks. In either case the local contract binds and the pass consumes it; a collection prototype may show starting prose for future copies but supplies no installed value.
  • Whether conjecture-stage keeping is a distinct policy value (option 1) or collapses into the existing status-conjecture idiom — the discovery lifecycle already names the stages; what is missing is only a disposition that routes to one.
  • Drift-detection granularity (option 2): one factored pair per attestation, or one per claim aggregating its attestations.

Adoption criteria

  • Option 1 adopts on a second installation, or a first concrete case of an installation wanting a policy other than ADR 066's. Building the parameterization ahead of any demand repeats the implementation-plan-first mistake this collection's contract warns against.
  • Option 2 adopts with the factored-dependency-pairs proposal, on its criteria, with an ideal-type claim's attestation set as the demanding consumer.
  • Whatever ships is consumed, not decorative: the pass instruction's disposition step reads the local declaration and its report names the policy value that governed the repair.

Risks

  • Policy proliferation. Per-installation epistemic policy invites every installation to invent its own falsification rules; the mitigation is a small instruction-owned vocabulary whose values have distinct, tested disposition behavior rather than free-form declarations.
  • Silent inheritance is the live default. Until option 1 ships, downstream installations get ADR 066's policy without a surface that tells them so.

Relevant Notes: