tegwick
3aa8cb7eaf
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
45 lines
1.4 KiB
YAML
45 lines
1.4 KiB
YAML
# Seed pressure record.
|
|
#
|
|
# Measured directly rather than observed from telemetry. The intent (section 13)
|
|
# permits a structural constraint to found a hypothesis without waiting for
|
|
# repetition, and this one is structural: it is a property of what a hall entry
|
|
# is, not of how anyone has used the interface.
|
|
fluid_pressure:
|
|
schema_version: "0.1"
|
|
|
|
id: "P-register"
|
|
interface_id: "helix-forge-telegram-publishing"
|
|
|
|
class: "repeated_expectation_mismatch"
|
|
|
|
first_seen: "2026-09-04T00:00:00Z"
|
|
last_seen: "2026-09-04T00:00:00Z"
|
|
|
|
affected_cohorts:
|
|
- "telegram-subscribers"
|
|
|
|
frequency:
|
|
observations: 94
|
|
independent_consumers: 1
|
|
|
|
severity: 0.8
|
|
confidence: 1.0
|
|
|
|
summary: >
|
|
A hall-of-helix entry is written for a colleague reading a repository: a
|
|
considered first-person account under fixed headings, median body 5767
|
|
characters, with 80 of 94 entries exceeding Telegram's 4096-character
|
|
single-message limit. A channel post reaches a stranger scrolling. These
|
|
are different pieces of writing for different readers, and publishing the
|
|
first as the second serves neither. The length figures are the visible
|
|
symptom; the mismatch is one of register and audience, and it would remain
|
|
if the limit were ten times larger.
|
|
|
|
evidence_refs:
|
|
- "measurement:hall-of-helix/entries@2026-09-04"
|
|
- "canon:fluid-telegram/TelegramCapabilityCanon.md#PUB-02"
|
|
|
|
status: "ANALYZING"
|
|
|
|
linked_hypotheses:
|
|
- "H-tg-visual"
|