Lens scoping records — run AGS-2026-08-21-SEQTHINK
Canonical location for logical record 6. Both lenses run; this step decides only how deep, and names the trigger evidence before any lens worker sees it.
SCOPE-MEM — memory/context lens
| field | value |
|---|---|
| lens | memory/context |
| trigger evidence IDs | OBJ-2, OBJ-3, RTE-5, RTE-6, RTE-7/OBJ-4, CLM-5 |
| inspected boundary | SRC-1 (full file), SRC-2 (full file), SRC-3 (dependency list) |
| routes and objects the evidence points the lens at | write side: RTE-4, RTE-5, RTE-6, objects OBJ-1, OBJ-2, OBJ-3. Read-back side: RTE-7 → OBJ-4, path BAP-2. Bounding absences: ABS-1, ABS-2, ABS-5, ABS-6, ABS-7, ABS-8. Non-read-back output channel: RTE-9 → OBJ-6, path BAP-3 |
| warranted depth | brief |
| rationale | Read-back exists and is real under the run's definition: Object.keys(branches) is a set of caller-authored labels accumulated through use, and thoughtHistoryLength is a derived count of accumulated material; both return to a later consumer invocation, and the fact that a long-lived process holds them in memory does not make them current-run state. But the path is degenerate in exactly the way the definition anticipates. No thought content ever returns (ABS-2); there is no selection signal, no targeting, no budget, no curation, no consolidation, decay, or promotion; nothing survives the process (ABS-1). Rich trigger evidence would warrant a full pass. This is thin-but-real, so: brief, covering the same ground proportionately, and stating what the thinness prevents. |
| depth is not an omission | The brief output must still state what was inventoried, what was found, and which conclusions the thinness prevents. |
SCOPE-EPI — epistemic lens
| field | value |
|---|---|
| lens | epistemic |
| trigger evidence IDs | OBJ-1, OBJ-5, RTE-3, RTE-9, CLM-1, CLM-2, CLM-6, CLM-7, ABS-3 |
| inspected boundary | SRC-1 (full file), SRC-2 (full file), SRC-6:27 |
| routes and objects the evidence points the lens at | truth-apt objects: OBJ-1 (the thought string), and derivatively OBJ-2, OBJ-3, OBJ-4, OBJ-6. Instruction object: OBJ-5. Candidate check route: RTE-3 — the only check-shaped route in the artifact. Content edges: RTE-3 (acquisition boundary), RTE-5/RTE-6 (retention), RTE-7 (derived return), RTE-9 (reshaping to stderr). Claims: CLM-1–CLM-7. Bounding absences: ABS-3, ABS-6, ABS-9, ABS-10 |
| warranted depth | full pass, bounded by the size of the artifact |
| rationale | Two independent triggers, both strong. (1) Material truth-apt content crosses the boundary: thought strings are propositions authored by EXT-3, acquired by the artifact, retained, reshaped for display, and summarized back to the caller. (2) The artifact makes an explicit, consequential knowledge-production and warrant claim: CLM-1 states, in a list headed "Key features" of the tool, that it "Generates a solution hypothesis", "Verifies the hypothesis based on the Chain of Thought steps", and "Provides a correct answer". A verification-and-correct-answer claim is precisely the case where the lens must run even though the expected finding is failure or absence. The decision-relevant work is the claim-versus-route comparison, which needs a real route ledger and a real claim table rather than a bounded confirmation of thinness — so: full pass. The artifact is 279 lines, so a full pass is cheap. |
| direct-adaptation note for the orchestrator (step 5 exception) | RTE-4 (raise totalThoughts to thoughtNumber when the caller overshoots) is an evaluated update of a control field with no evident truth-apt object. It stays in the runtime account (LOOP-B). It is handed to the epistemic lens only as a candidate non-truth-apt policy/content update edge to be classified as such, not as an epistemic route to be analysed for warrant. If the lens finds totalThoughts truth-apt after all, that is a correction to return, not a scope expansion. |
Neither lens is scoped absent, inapplicable, or uncertain. Both outputs exist as explicit records (logical record 7): lens-memory.md and lens-epistemic.md.