SLM-258: publish LotusOpenUIDispositionV1 (inconclusive_missing_evidence) - #943
Merged
Conversation
LOT1-01's own hard activation gates require SLM-248's fidelity-contract verdict to be authorize_bounded_implementation and SLM-249's trace gate verdict to be oracle_ceiling_positive. The real committed upstream artifacts report needs_target_trace_contract and inconclusive respectively (SLM-249's own allowed_lot1_implementation field says "none: ... not authorized by this issue"). Per the issue's own text, this closes not_authorized in plan-only mode without any Kxc model/training code. Adds a small, reusable, tested LotusOpenUIModelContractV1 evaluator that reads the two upstream contracts and derives the verdict from their real published fields (not hardcoded to always fail — a synthetic both-gates-met case is tested to flip the result to authorized_wiring_only). Re-running the same CLI after SLM-249 gets a real oracle-ceiling campaign will honestly reflect the new disposition. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01KShriKrGosZr67yVPFgi78
LOT1-02's launch prerequisites are unmet against the real committed upstream contracts: SLM-248 reports needs_target_trace_contract (not authorize_bounded_implementation), SLM-249's trace gate reports inconclusive (not oracle_ceiling_positive), its own allowed_lot1_implementation authorizes no LOT1 implementation, and LOT1-01 (SLM-250) itself closed not_authorized -- so no faithful K x c model path, curriculum hooks, or Stage 0 parent exist to train, and there is no treatment arm to attribute against a continued-explicit control. Per LOT1-01's own gate law this closes LOT1-02 not_authorized in plan-only mode with no training/curriculum/model code. Adds a small tested Lot102LaunchGateV1 evaluator that reuses the SLM-250 lot1_01_activation_gate module (no parallel path) and adds the SLM-249 explicit-allowance check; synthetic positive fixtures prove it flips to authorized_wiring_only when prerequisites are honestly met.
LOT2-01's activation requires SLM-251 (LOT1-02) to authorize LOT2 with a selected parent, faithful treatment checkpoint/recipe, continued explicit control, curriculum, and fairness manifests. The LOT1-02 launch gate reports not_authorized against the real committed upstream contracts (SLM-248 needs_target_trace_contract, SLM-249 inconclusive with allowed_lot1_implementation=none, LOT1-01 itself not_authorized), so none of those artifacts exist and the supervision routing x timing x grounding factorial cannot launch honestly. Adds a generic LotDownstreamGateV1 evaluator covering all LOT2+ issues through one registry (no per-issue parallel paths), reusing the lot1_02 gate. Even a synthetic positive LOT1 chain yields only upstream_authorized_pending_campaign_gate, never a launch or quality claim. No training/factorial/readout code is added.
LOT2-02 requires SLM-251's qualified faithful checkpoint/recipe plus continued explicit control and SLM-252's selected supervision routing; the LOT1-02 launch gate is not_authorized against the real committed contracts, so neither exists and the PCL vs structured/set-valued/ block-autoregressive readout matrix cannot launch honestly. Registers SLM-253 in the shared LOT downstream gate (structured-latent-readout-gate-v1) with not_authorized iter docs; no readout/objective code added.
LOT3-01's activation gates require a qualified faithful latent checkpoint (SLM-251), a selected routing contract (SLM-252), a selected readout contract (SLM-253), and a nonzero oracle substitution ceiling; per the issue text, when these fail the issue closes with causal_study_not_authorized rather than manufacturing interpretability evidence. The LOT1-02 launch gate is not_authorized against the real committed contracts, so there is no latent checkpoint to capture, probe, or intervene on. Registers SLM-254 in the shared LOT downstream gate (causal-latent-use-gate-v1) with not_authorized iter docs; no capture/intervention/probe code added.
LOT3-02 requires SLM-253's selected readout contract and SLM-254's valid causal factor/intervention encoding; the LOT1-02 launch gate is not_authorized against the real committed contracts, so neither exists and there is no latent neighborhood to learn or intervene on. Registers SLM-255 in the shared LOT downstream gate (alternative-valid-latent-gate-v1) with not_authorized iter docs; no set-valued objective, generator, or intervention code added.
LOT2-03 requires SLM-251's qualified faithful treatment/control and SLM-252's selected routing contract; the LOT1-02 launch gate is not_authorized against the real committed contracts, so there is no looped-latent workspace to sweep and no routing contract to hold fixed. Registers SLM-256 in the shared LOT downstream gate (latent-workspace-capacity-gate-v1) with not_authorized iter docs; no capacity/order matrix code added.
LOT4-01 requires SLM-251's faithful treatment and continued explicit checkpoints with fairness manifests plus the LOT2/LOT3 objective/readout/workspace selections; the LOT1-02 launch gate is not_authorized against the real committed contracts, so there are no checkpoints to benchmark and no equal-quality frontier to measure. Registers SLM-257 in the shared LOT downstream gate (lotus-openui-compute-frontier-v1) with not_authorized iter docs; no benchmark/telemetry code added.
…nce) Aggregates the real committed upstream gate artifacts into the final fail-closed LOT4-02 disposition: SLM-248 needs_target_trace_contract, SLM-249 inconclusive, SLM-250..257 all not_authorized. Adoption is blocked on every minimum-evidence leg, no interpretable-reasoning or cost language is allowed, production defaults are unchanged (V1 has no adopt_default), the trace contract and gate evaluators are retained as diagnostic assets, and the negative-result registry + required follow-ups (oracle-ceiling campaign, then re-run the live gate evaluators) are recorded. All fields are generated from the artifacts, not retyped.
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.
|
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 46 minutes Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available. How can I continue?After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews. How do review limits work?CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability. For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window. Please refer docs for additional details. Review details⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (7)
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
…sition # Conflicts: # src/slm_training/resources/versions.json
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Publishes SLM-258 (LOT4-02)
LotusOpenUIDispositionV1— the final fail-closed disposition for the LOTUS-to-OpenUI transfer, generated from the real committed upstream gate artifacts (no retyped numbers):needs_target_trace_contract, SLM-249inconclusive, SLM-250…257 allnot_authorized→ adoption verdictinconclusive_missing_evidence(SLM-248 explicitly ruled outreject_transfer; this is a scoped prerequisite, not a rejection)not_identifiable;CompilerReasoningTraceV1+ gate evaluators retained askeep_diagnosticassets (trace/eval assets survive the negative model disposition, as the issue allows)adopt_default; a default switch would need a separate rollout issueStacked on PR #942 (chain: #927 → #930 → #934 → #936 → #937 → #939 → #941 → #942 → this).
Verification
pytest tests/test_harnesses/experiments/test_lotus_openui_disposition.py tests/test_scripts/test_publish_lotus_openui_disposition.py— 8 passed (incl. missing-artifact fail-closed, interpretability-language block, no-default-change, trace-asset retention)python -m scripts.publish_lotus_openui_disposition— exit 0; version-stampeddocs/design/iter-slm258-lot4-02-disposition-20260725.{json,md}python -m scripts.verify_version_stamps --check— ok (harness.experimentsv117, newharness.experiments.lotus_openui_dispositionv1)python -m scripts.repo_policy— ok;git diff --check— cleanHonest scope