H-001..H-005 with explicit falsification conditions, E-001..E-003, the Concept-Implementation Fitness Map, findings log and ID convention. Plain files, no tooling. - fitness map corrects Improvement Loop section 13 levels downward: nothing exceeds C1 without implementation - H-005 (Energy) dormant by decision - events captured, no scoring written - H-001 gets a genuine control arm so the semantic-action thesis is not trivially true - E-003 added: deliberately attacks the safety boundary rather than only sampling benign cases Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 1629012@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: 78d4fb13-8a1e-474b-87a3-9b9261c49a39
1.2 KiB
| id | title | status | created | experiments | concepts | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H-001 | Semantic Action Stability | PROPOSED | 2026-08-22 |
|
|
H-001 — Semantic Action Stability
Claim
A semantic action survives implementation restructuring better than a recorded UI interaction sequence.
Falsification condition
Across the labelled mechanical mutations in the lab (T05), a recorded interaction sequence survives at least as many mutations as the semantic action does.
If mechanics-free identity buys no measurable durability, the central abstraction
is decorative and SemanticAction should be reduced to a naming convention.
Measurement
Mechanical Recovery Rate for each of two arms over the same mutation set:
- arm A — semantic action realized by an agentic driver;
- arm B — a recorded selector-based sequence captured against the baseline.
Arm B is a genuine control and must be run, not assumed to fail.
Threats to validity
The comparison is unfair if arm B is built naively — a brittle straw man makes H-001 trivially true and worthless. Arm B uses the most robust selector strategy reasonably available (roles, labels, test ids where the lab provides them).
Status log
- 2026-08-22
PROPOSED. No evidence.