Review: Explanatory-reach

Audit KB notes against the explanatory-reach test from first-principles reasoning selects for explanatory-reach over adaptive fit. Identify notes that are merely adaptive (record what works without explaining why) and flag them for deepening.

This file is a stable runbook. Do not edit it per run; only change it when scope or process changes.

Scope

  • kb/theory/*.md — all notes with frontmatter (skip text files and indexes)
  • Focus on notes with tags learning-theory, computational-model first — these are the areas where explanatory depth matters most

Cadence

Weekly. Due when the log's latest dated section is older than seven days or absent.

Batch

One run reviews the next ten notes. Order the in-scope notes by filename; skip every note already listed under Reviewed in any earlier log section; take the first ten remaining. When none remain, the next run starts over from the beginning and may reclassify.

Write scope

kb/tasks/review-explanatory-reach-log.md only. The run reads anything it needs and writes nothing else. It stages exactly this file and commits it with the subject Run recurring task review-explanatory-reach.

Consumer

The operator reads the Top candidates for deepening list of the latest section when choosing notes to revise. Candidates that are acted on are not tracked by this task.

Run Procedure

For each note in scope, apply the four-part test:

  1. Can you vary the explanation? If you changed one premise, could you predict what changes in the conclusion? If yes, the note captures causal structure. If no, it may be recording correlation or pattern without mechanism.

  2. Does it reach? Would the insight apply in a domain the note doesn't mention? If yes, the mechanism is deeper than the specific case. If no, the note may be context-fitted.

  3. Can it be criticized? Is there a specific way the explanation could be wrong, not just incomplete? Notes that are purely definitional or taxonomic will fail this — that's fine, flag them as a different kind (framework note, not explanatory note) rather than as deficient.

  4. Does observed fit discipline the explanation? Can the note account for where the pattern actually works, fails, or costs too much to maintain? An explanation that never touches observed fit has verbal explanatory-reach without operational grip.

Classification

For each note, assign one of:

  • explanatory — passes the four tests; captures mechanism with explanatory-reach
  • adaptive — records a pattern that works without explaining why; candidate for deepening
  • framework — definitional, taxonomic, or structural; not expected to be explanatory (indexes, type definitions, methodology)
  • mixed — has explanatory sections and adaptive sections; flag which parts could be deepened

Output

Record findings in kb/tasks/review-explanatory-reach-log.md. Append one dated section per run (e.g. ## 2026-03-07) with: - Reviewed: the ten note filenames, one per line, so the next run can skip them - Classification breakdown - Top candidates for deepening (adaptive notes where adding mechanism would increase explanatory-reach) - Any notes reclassified from previous runs