docs(plan): correct D-TRI-1 classid spec — cognitive task types are already frozen atoms#726
Conversation
…lready frozen atoms The #719 spec proposed a new Cognition 0x03 ConceptDomain with a cognitive_<verb> CODEBOOK block. That duplicated types that already exist: the cognitive task types (inference/deduction/induction/abduction/ counterfactual/extrapolation/syllogism/synthesis/fan-out) are global frozen atoms in holograph::dntree — epistemic verbs 72-95 (INFERS=74, DEDUCES=82, INDUCES=83, ABDUCES=84, PREDICTS=89, HYPOTHESIZES=81) and frameworks 0x80-0x8F (COUNTERFACTUAL=0x84, ABDUCTION=0x85, CAUSALITY=0x83); syllogism is the shipped NARS syllogize() op; synthesis/fan-out are orchestration ops. Corrections: - §2 rewritten: reference the frozen atoms, never mint a Cognition domain; byte 0x03 stays reserved (RESERVE-DON'T-RECLAIM). A thinking/task row carries classid=its domain, task-type=a frozen atom index in a lane, thinking-lane materialisation=a read-mode property (ValueSchema::Thinking). - §2a added: persona/play-style modeling is per-consumer opt-in + its own mint (chess play-style nice-to-have; business consumers not conform). - §0c: cognitive_* and cognitive_board classid rows removed; only chess 0x06 remains a concept mint; BoardAggregates@188 is a value tenant only. - §0/§4/§5/§6/§7: Cognition origination removed; community-id does not mint (S1 retracted by #722); one open knob left (BoardAggregates width). No bytes were ever minted (the spec was a proposal), so this is a pre-mint correction with zero on-chain reclaim. Records E-COGNITIVE-ATOMS-ALREADY-FROZEN (EPIPHANIES prepend) and updates the D-TRI-1 STATUS_BOARD row. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Awg6TXocHcwTtc6eGsHcdD
|
Warning Review limit reached
Next review available in: 8 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: Organization UI Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Plus Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (3)
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 |
Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reachedBugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit. A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard. (requestId: serverGenReqId_59b1b559-e6da-4f70-9118-a8bba1f88169) |
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 813fb2a600
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub
Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
- Open a pull request for review
- Mark a draft as ready
- Comment "@codex review".
If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.
Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".
| - **classid = its domain** (chess `0x06`, OSINT `0x07`, ProjectMgmt `0x01`, | ||
| …) — the row is *about* something in a domain; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When task rows reuse the same domain classid as normal rows, the mandatory ValueSchema::Thinking routing below cannot be implemented without also changing every entity in that domain: classid_read_mode is keyed only by the classid (crates/lance-graph-contract/src/canonical_node.rs:1402-1406), and the existing domain roots such as Project/ERP/OSINT currently resolve to Cognitive. Following this spec would therefore either drop the triangle lanes for task rows or force unrelated entity rows in the same domain to materialise Thinking; the deleted cognitive_task classid needs a replacement discriminator.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
| community-id NEVER mints and the batch is exactly chess `0x06` + | ||
| BoardAggregates + the graphrag `D-GR-5` doc-seam classid. If S1 measures | ||
| *distinct*, one more concept row folds in. (S1 was subsequently retracted |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This still describes the mint as if S1 can produce a distinct community-id row, but the correction later in the same paragraph and in §6 says S1 was retracted and community-id does not mint. If the council follows §0 as the handoff boundary, this leaves an obsolete pre-execution gate and an extra possible row in the batch even though the corrected model is supposed to be execution-ready without S1.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
2 participants
What
Corrects the D-TRI-1 classid-half mint spec (
.claude/plans/dtri1-classid-mint-spec-v1.md, merged as a proposal in #719). The v1 draft proposed a newCognition 0x03ConceptDomainwith acognitive_<verb>CODEBOOK block (cognitive_inference 0x0304,cognitive_deduction 0x0305, …). That duplicated types that already exist.Why
The cognitive task types (inference / deduction / induction / abduction / counterfactual / extrapolation / syllogism / synthesis / fan-out) are already global frozen atoms in
crates/holograph/src/dntree.rs:INFERS=74,HYPOTHESIZES=81,DEDUCES=82,INDUCES=83,ABDUCES=84,PREDICTS=89,EXPECTS=90NARS=0x80,CAUSALITY=0x83,COUNTERFACTUAL=0x84,ABDUCTION=0x85syllogize()op (lance-graph-osintp5_syllogize)Minting a parallel
0x03concept domain is the exact 30-turn rediscovery tax the workspace rules warn against. Operator-taught 2026-07-18.Changes (docs only — no code, no bytes minted)
0x03stays reserved (RESERVE-DON'T-RECLAIM). A thinking/task row carriesclassid = its domain,task-type = a frozen atom indexin a row lane, and thinking-lane materialisation = a read-mode property (ValueSchema::Thinking, §5).cognitive_*andcognitive_board 0x0309classid rows removed; only chess0x06remains a concept mint; BoardAggregates@188 is a value tenant only.EPIPHANIES.md— prependE-COGNITIVE-ATOMS-ALREADY-FROZEN.STATUS_BOARD.md— D-TRI-1 row updated to the corrected model.The #719 spec was a proposal (no bytes ever minted), so this is a pre-mint correction with zero on-chain reclaim. The only real concept mint left in the D-TRI-1 batch is chess
0x06+ BoardAggregates@188 (value tenant).Cross-refs
E-COGNITIVE-ATOMS-ALREADY-FROZEN(this PR)E-D-TRI-2-MINT-BLOCKED-1(named the pre-existingD-TSC-2"OGAR cognition-domain mint" — now retired as an error)E-S1-PROBE-REMOVED-1/ arigraph: remove the S1 similarity probe; add EpisodicMemory::basins() (structure, not similarity) #722 (S1 retraction — corroborates the community-id no-mint)🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_01Awg6TXocHcwTtc6eGsHcdD
Generated by Claude Code