# Competing hypothesis A, in group CG-tg-length.
#
# Create with:
#   fluid hypothesis create --file hypotheses/H-tg-teaser.yaml
#   fluid hypothesis compete --group CG-tg-length H-tg-teaser H-tg-serial
fluid_hypothesis:
  schema_version: "0.1"

  id: "H-tg-teaser"
  interface_id: "helix-forge-telegram-publishing"
  state: "DRAFT"

  title: "A teaser and a link serve readers better than the whole entry"

  observation:
    summary: >
      85% of hall entries exceed Telegram's 4096-character message limit, with
      a median body of 5767 characters. The interface must choose a form for
      long entries before it can publish at all.
    evidence_refs:
      - "measurement:hall-of-helix/entries@2026-09-04"
      - "pressure:P-tg-length"
    affected_cohorts:
      - "telegram-subscribers"

  pressure:
    classes:
      - "missing_interface_capability"
    pressure_refs:
      - "P-tg-length"
    severity: 0.85
    confidence: 1.0

  explanation:
    claim: >
      A channel post is scanned, not read. A hall entry is a considered
      first-person account that rewards attention. Presenting an opening and a
      link lets a reader decide to give it that attention somewhere designed
      for reading, rather than committing to a wall of text in a feed.
    reach:
      score: 0.5
      explains:
        - "P-tg-length"
      notes: >
        Medium reach. It answers the length constraint and would answer the
        same constraint on X, but it does not address entries with visuals or
        entries readers might want to keep in the channel.

  proposed_adaptation:
    class: "presentation"
    summary: >
      Publish the title, the display name, the opening of the entry, and a link
      to the full entry in hall-of-helix.
    implementation_scope: "interface_only"

  backend_requirements:
    required: false
    requirement_refs: []

  expected_outcomes:
    - metric: "read_through_rate"
      cohort: "telegram-subscribers"
      target: 0.15
      direction: "higher"
    - metric: "messages_per_entry"
      cohort: "all"
      baseline: 2.0
      target: 1.0
      direction: "lower"

  guardrails:
    - metric: "entry_content_loss"
      operator: "=="
      threshold: false
    - metric: "error_rate"
      operator: "<="
      threshold: 0.01

  fitness_dimensions:
    expected:
      client_utility: 0.4
      discoverability: 0.5
      simplicity: 0.6
      correctness: 0.0
      security: 0.0

  complexity:
    expected_delta:
      operation_count: 0
      concept_count: 0
      cognitive_load: -0.1
    score: 0.05

  risk:
    level: "LOW"
    reasons:
      - "presentation only; no contract or authorization change"
      - "fully reversible by replacing the revision"

  economics:
    estimated_experiment_cost: 0.0
    estimated_implementation_cost: 0.0
    currency: "EUR"
    expected_value_class: "MEDIUM"

  learning_value:
    score: 0.8
    notes: >
      Whichever way this resolves, the answer transfers directly to
      fluid-x and fluid-substack, which face the same problem under
      different constraints.

  success_criteria:
    expression: >
      read_through_rate >= 0.15 AND no guardrail violation

  failure_criteria:
    expression: >
      any hard guardrail violation
      OR read_through_rate below the serialized alternative over the same window

  outcome:
    status: null
    summary: null
    evidence_refs: []