coulomb/fluid-telegram
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Reframe the interface around composed posts, not republished entries

Browse source 
The channel publishes a post written from a hall entry -- condensed,
personal, reach-optimized -- not the entry itself. That changes what
this interface is for and where its boundary sits.

Composition is deliberately outside the interface. Composing is a
probabilistic editorial task, and Blueprint 48.1 forbids an LLM in the
mandatory request path, so an interface that composed on demand would be
non-deterministic exactly where determinism is the whole claim. It is
also editorial: a post speaks about a named person's work in
HelixForge's voice, and a review step inside the request path is a
review step nobody performs.

The contract now takes a composed post with a required reviewer, a cited
source entry and a consent basis. A post carrying none of those is
refused. Absence of objection is not consent, and in an audit trail an
unfaithful post looks exactly like a faithful one -- the defence is that
a human read it, the source is named, and both are recorded.

The first experiment is rebuilt accordingly. The old competition asked
how to fit a whole entry into Telegram; that question no longer exists.
The new one asks whether the portrait earns the 3072 characters of
caption limit it costs, which is a delivery question this interface
actually owns. Competition over editorial voice belongs to the campaign
and runs on the per-variant engagement this interface reports.

Adds T05b (composition and review), T05c (consent basis for the 94
existing participants, blocking public publication) and T11 (extracting
the campaign into pr-hall-of-helix).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_014KmVxhJ35tCo7rE7UnLwWu

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 1116572@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: 8ba9bb93-a72a-4883-b189-2499cce5c400
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-04 11:57:28 +02:00
parent aa95a09ab6
commit 3aa8cb7eaf
14 changed files with 793 additions and 521 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

49
docs/observation.md
View file

@ -7,8 +7,8 @@ enough to compare over time and no more granular than the analysis requires.
| Cohort | Assigned by | Why it is distinct |
|---|---|---|
| `hall-publishing-jobs` | `X-FLUID-Consumer` prefix `hall-` | Batch behaviour; publishes many entries at once |
| `helix-forge-agents` | `X-FLUID-Consumer` prefix `agent-` | One entry at a time, at session end; the richest pressure signal |
| `hall-publishing-jobs` | `X-FLUID-Consumer` prefix `hall-` | Batch behaviour; publishes many posts at once. Becomes the `pr-hall-of-helix` campaign job |
| `helix-forge-agents` | `X-FLUID-Consumer` prefix `agent-` | One post at a time, at session end |
| `operators` | `X-FLUID-Consumer` prefix `op-` | Rare, deliberate, often corrective |
| `telegram-subscribers` | Not a caller | An observed population, never an API consumer |
@ -31,9 +31,10 @@ Beyond the fluid-core defaults, this interface adds:
usernames, display names of subscribers — must not reach the evidence store
in any form, redacted or otherwise. There is no legitimate analysis that
needs them, so the safe rule is that they never arrive.
- **Entry content is not telemetry.** An entry body may appear in a request; it
must not appear in a telemetry event. What is recorded is its length, its
section count, and whether conversion succeeded.
- **Post text is not telemetry.** The body appears in the request and is kept
in the publication record, because it is what was said in HelixForge's name.
It must not appear in a telemetry event: observation is for measuring how
posts performed, not for accumulating a second copy of what they said.
- **The bot token appears nowhere.** Not in errors, not in traces, not in
redacted form.
@ -55,16 +56,32 @@ loss and start a fresh evidence baseline, not to rotate quietly.
| Metric | Role | Source |
|---|---|---|
| `read_through_rate` | primary | Telegram channel statistics, aggregate |
| `messages_per_entry` | guardrail | Adapter |
| `entry_content_loss` | guardrail | Adapter |
| `engagement_rate` | primary | Telegram channel statistics, aggregate |
| `unreviewed_publication` | guardrail | Adapter |
| `missing_source_attribution` | guardrail | Adapter |
| `missing_subject_consent` | guardrail | Adapter |
| `error_rate` | guardrail | Gateway |
| `reaction_rate` | secondary | Telegram channel statistics, aggregate |
| `time_to_first_read` | learning | Telegram channel statistics, aggregate |
| `source_link_rate` | secondary | Telegram channel statistics, aggregate |
| `forward_rate` | secondary | Telegram channel statistics, aggregate |
| `time_to_first_view` | learning | Telegram channel statistics, aggregate |
`read_through_rate` is the one to be careful about. Telegram reports view counts
per message, not per reader. For the teaser form it is link clicks over views;
for the serialized form it is views of the last part over views of the first.
Those are not the same measurement, and comparing them directly is the weakest
part of the first experiment. Say so in the experiment's amendment record rather
than letting the comparison look cleaner than it is.
`engagement_rate` is the one to be careful about. Telegram reports views,
reactions and forwards per message, not per reader, and a "rate" therefore has
subscribers as its denominator rather than people who saw the post. It is a
proxy, and a noisy one at small subscriber counts. Say so in the experiment's
amendment record rather than letting the comparison look cleaner than it is.
## Variant attribution
Every post carries a `variant` label naming the composition strategy that
produced it. This interface treats it as opaque: it records the label, and
reports engagement grouped by it.
That is deliberately the whole of the interface's involvement in composition.
The campaign compares its own strategies using this data, running its own FLUID
experiments over its own artifacts. The interface does not know what
`variant: warm-specific-v2` means and must not acquire an opinion about it.
Without this field the campaign would have to infer which post came from which
strategy by timestamp, which is exactly the kind of reconstruction that quietly
stops being accurate.