@xdarkicex/openclaw-memory-libravdb 1.3.11 → 1.3.13

package/docs/mathematics-v2.md

@@ -0,0 +1,1228 @@
+# Mathematical Reference
+
+This document is the formal reference for the scoring and optimization math used
+by the plugin. The gating scalar is documented separately in
+[gating.md](./gating.md). The continuity model and recent-tail preservation
+layer are documented in [continuity.md](./continuity.md). The authored
+invariant/variant partitioning rules are documented in
+[ast-v2.md](./ast-v2.md). Earlier non-versioned math docs are preserved for
+historical context, but the reviewed `*-v*` documents are authoritative when
+both forms exist.
+
+Every formula below points at the file that currently implements it. If the code
+changes first, this document must change with it.
+
+This revision (3.3) merges the complete section set from `mathematics.md` with
+the formal corrections introduced in `mathematics-3-2.md`. All sections are now
+present and carry the 3.2 corrections:
+
+- explicit domain and startup invariants where later proofs depend on them
+- removal of self-referential set definitions in the planned two-pass model
+- disambiguation of decay symbols with different units and meanings
+- explicit convex-combination proof obligations for bounded scores
+- regularized Matryoshka normalization with $\varepsilon$-guarded denominators
+  and explicit early-exit threshold values
+- division-by-zero guards in compaction clustering ($n = 0$ and $k = 0$ cases)
+- clamped confidence formula with per-backend range proofs
+- cold-start smoothing in the authority-weight frequency term $f(d)$
+- separated coarse-candidate raw set from filtered set in Pass 1
+- $\eta_{\mathrm{hop}}$ symbol replacing bare $\lambda$ for hop attenuation
+- startup invariant $\tau_{\mathcal{I}} \le \tau$ made explicit
+- edge-case safety and quality-multiplier boundedness added as runtime invariants
+- Unicode code-point correction in sidecar token estimator
+- $\chi$ calibration notice tied to tokenizer validation
+
+## 1. Hybrid Scoring
+
+Each candidate returned by the vector store starts with a cosine similarity score
+$\cos(q,d) \in [0,1]$ from embedding retrieval. The host then applies a hybrid
+ranker:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{base}(d) =
+\alpha \cdot \cos(q,d) +
+\beta \cdot R(d) +
+\gamma \cdot S(d)
+$$
+
+$$
+\mathrm{score}(d) = \mathrm{base}(d) \cdot Q(d)
+$$
+
+where:
+
+$$
+R(d) = e^{-\lambda_s(d)\,\Delta t_d}
+$$
+
+$$
+S(d)=
+\begin{cases}
+1.0 & \text{if } d \text{ is from the active session} \\
+0.6 & \text{if } d \text{ is from durable user memory} \\
+0.3 & \text{if } d \text{ is from global memory}
+\end{cases}
+$$
+
+$$
+Q(d)=
+\begin{cases}
+1 - \delta \cdot \mathrm{decay\_rate}(d) & \text{if } d \text{ is a summary} \\
+1 & \text{otherwise}
+\end{cases}
+$$
+
+Implemented in [`src/scoring.ts`](../src/scoring.ts).
+
+The current implementation defaults are:
+
+- $\alpha = 0.7$
+- $\beta = 0.2$
+- $\gamma = 0.1$
+- $\delta = 0.5$
+
+The runtime enforces this convex-mixture contract by clamping weights into
+$[0,1]$ and re-normalizing them onto a unit sum before scoring. This keeps the
+base score on a stable scale and makes tuning interpretable: increasing one
+weight means explicitly decreasing another.
+
+**Note on retrieval similarity.** The term $\cos(q,d) \in [0,1]$ represents the
+similarity score as bounded at the host ranking boundary. If the retrieval layer
+surfaces a negative cosine-style score, the host clamps it to $0$ before applying
+the section-1 hybrid ranker. The planned two-pass system in Section 7 uses raw
+cosine similarity spanning $[-1,1]$ with negatives clipped explicitly. These are
+described separately to avoid conflating current implementation with planned
+architecture.
+
+### 1.1 Domain Constraints
+
+The following parameter domains are required for all formulas in this section:
+
+$$
+\alpha, \beta, \gamma \in [0,1], \qquad \alpha + \beta + \gamma = 1
+$$
+
+$$
+\delta \in [0,1]
+$$
+
+$$
+\cos(q,d) \in [0,1], \qquad R(d) \in (0,1], \qquad S(d) \in \{0.3, 0.6, 1.0\}
+$$
+
+$$
+\mathrm{decay\_rate}(d) \in [0,1]
+$$
+
+Under these assumptions, $\mathrm{base}(d)$ is a convex combination of
+quantities in $[0,1]$, so:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{base}(d) \in [0,1]
+$$
+
+And since $\delta \in [0,1]$ and the decay rate is in $[0,1]$:
+
+$$
+Q(d) \in [1-\delta,\, 1] \subseteq [0,1]
+$$
+
+Therefore:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{score}(d) \in [0,1]
+$$
+
+### 1.2 Boundary Cases
+
+- $\alpha = 1$ collapses to semantic retrieval only.
+- $\beta = 1$ collapses to pure recency preference.
+- $\gamma = 1$ collapses to scope-only ranking and is almost always wrong
+  because it ignores content.
+- $\delta = 0$ ignores summary quality completely.
+- $\delta = 1$ applies the maximum configured penalty to low-confidence
+  summaries while preserving nonnegativity, because
+  the decay rate is in $[0,1]$, which guarantees $Q(d) \ge 0$.
+
+### 1.3 Note on $S(d)$ Values
+
+The scope weights $\{1.0, 0.6, 0.3\}$ are empirically tuned constants, not
+values derived from a normalized probability model. They are intentionally
+stable across query types. At the default $\gamma = 0.1$, the maximum
+contribution of $S(d)$ to $\mathrm{base}(d)$ is $0.1$, so miscalibration of
+these values has bounded impact on the final score. Future work may replace
+this step function with access-frequency priors derived from retrieval
+telemetry.
+
+## 2. Recency Decay
+
+Recency uses exponential decay:
+
+$$
+R(d) = e^{-\lambda_s \Delta t_d}
+$$
+
+where $\Delta t_d$ is the age of the record in seconds and $\lambda_s$ is the
+scope-specific decay constant.
+
+Implemented in [`src/scoring.ts`](../src/scoring.ts).
+
+In the current implementation, $\Delta t_d$ is measured in **seconds**, not
+milliseconds:
+
+$$
+\Delta t_d = \frac{\mathrm{Date.now()} - ts_d}{1000}
+$$
+
+and the $\lambda_s$ values are therefore **per-second** decay constants. The
+product $\lambda_s \Delta t_d$ is dimensionless, as required by the exponential.
+
+The current implementation uses different constants by scope:
+
+- active session: $\lambda_s = 0.0001$
+- durable user memory: $\lambda_s = 0.00001$
+- global memory: $\lambda_s = 0.000002$
+
+The implied half-lives make the decay constants auditable at a glance:
+
+| Scope | $\lambda_s$ | Half-life |
+|---|---|---|
+| Session | $0.0001$ | $\approx 1.9\ \text{hours}$ |
+| User | $0.00001$ | $\approx 19\ \text{hours}$ |
+| Global | $0.000002$ | $\approx 4\ \text{days}$ |
+
+$$
+t_{1/2} = \frac{\ln 2}{\lambda_s}
+$$
+
+If those half-lives feel wrong for a given deployment, adjust $\lambda_s$ via
+config — do not change the decay formula itself.
+
+This makes session context fade fastest, user memory fade more slowly, and
+global memory remain the most stable.
+
+**Note on symbol disambiguation.** The symbol $\lambda_s$ here denotes the
+scope-specific recency decay constant with units $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$. Section 7.3
+uses $\lambda_r$ for a separate recency constant in the planned authority weight.
+Section 7.7 uses $\eta_{\mathrm{hop}}$ for a dimensionless hop attenuation
+factor. These three parameters are distinct and must not be substituted for each
+other.
+
+Why exponential instead of linear:
+
+- exponential decay preserves ordering smoothly across many time scales
+- it never goes negative
+- it gives a natural "fast drop then long tail" shape for conversational relevance
+
+Linear decay has a hard cutoff or requires arbitrary clipping. Exponential decay
+decays old memories continuously without inventing a discontinuity.
+
+## 3. Token Budget Fitting
+
+After ranking, the system performs greedy prompt packing.
+
+Implemented in [`src/tokens.ts`](../src/tokens.ts).
+
+Let candidates be sorted by final hybrid score:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{score}(d_1) \ge \mathrm{score}(d_2) \ge \dots \ge \mathrm{score}(d_n)
+$$
+
+and let $c_i$ be the estimated token cost of candidate $d_i$. The current host
+token estimator is:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{estimateTokens}(t)=\left\lceil\frac{|t|}{\chi(t)}\right\rceil
+$$
+
+where:
+
+$$
+\chi(t)=
+\begin{cases}
+1.6 & \text{for CJK scripts} \\
+2.5 & \text{for Cyrillic, Arabic, or Hebrew scripts} \\
+4.0 & \text{otherwise}
+\end{cases}
+$$
+
+Given prompt budget $B$, the system selects the longest ranked prefix whose
+cumulative cost fits:
+
+$$
+S = [d_1, d_2, \dots, d_m]
+$$
+
+such that:
+
+$$
+\sum_{i=1}^{m} c_i \le B
+$$
+
+and either $m=n$ or $\sum_{i=1}^{m+1} c_i > B$.
+
+Greedy is optimal for this implementation because the ranking is already fixed.
+The problem is not "find the best weighted subset under a knapsack objective";
+it is "preserve rank order while honoring a hard prompt cap." Once rank order
+is fixed, prefix acceptance is the correct policy.
+
+**Note on estimator divergence.** The host estimator
+([`src/tokens.ts`](../src/tokens.ts)) is script-aware and is used for prompt
+budget fitting. The sidecar estimator
+([`sidecar/compact/tokens.go`](../sidecar/compact/tokens.go)) uses a fixed
+normalization rule:
+
+$$
+\widehat{T}_{sidecar}(t)=\max\!\left(\left\lfloor\frac{C(t)}{4}\right\rfloor,\, 1\right)
+$$
+
+where $C(t)$ is the Unicode code-point count of the string. The sidecar uses
+`utf8.RuneCountInString()` rather than `len()`, because Go's `len()` returns
+the UTF-8 byte length, not the code-point count; a CJK character occupies 3
+bytes, so `len()` would produce a systematic over-count relative to the host
+estimator's character-based ratios. The remaining divergence is bounded in
+impact because the sidecar value appears only as a normalization denominator
+in $P(t)$, never in prompt-budget arithmetic.
+
+The two estimators are intentionally different. The host estimator optimizes
+prompt-budget accuracy. The sidecar estimator is used only as a stable
+normalization denominator in the technical specificity signal $P(t)$ of the
+gating scalar. They must not be substituted for each other.
+
+**Note on $\chi$ calibration.** The ratios $\{1.6, 2.5, 4.0\}$ are validated
+against GPT-4 family tokenizers. They should be re-validated against the
+deployment tokenizer on a representative corpus sample whenever the tokenizer
+changes; the validation script and its results should be committed alongside
+this document.
+
+## 4. Matryoshka Cascade
+
+For Nomic embeddings, one full vector $\vec{v} \in \mathbb{R}^{768}$ produces
+three tiers via regularized normalization:
+
+$$
+\vec{u}_{64} = \frac{\vec{v}_{1:64}}{\sqrt{\lVert \vec{v}_{1:64} \rVert_2^2 + \varepsilon^2}}, \quad
+\vec{u}_{256} = \frac{\vec{v}_{1:256}}{\sqrt{\lVert \vec{v}_{1:256} \rVert_2^2 + \varepsilon^2}}, \quad
+\vec{u}_{768} = \frac{\vec{v}_{1:768}}{\sqrt{\lVert \vec{v}_{1:768} \rVert_2^2 + \varepsilon^2}}
+$$
+
+where $\varepsilon = 10^{-8}$.
+
+Re-normalization is required after truncation because a prefix of a unit vector
+is not itself a unit vector in general. The regularized denominator
+$\sqrt{\lVert \vec{v}_{1:k} \rVert_2^2 + \varepsilon^2}$ is numerically
+identical to the plain $L_2$ norm when the norm is large, and smoothly forces
+$\vec{u}_k \to \vec{0}$ when the norm approaches zero rather than producing NaN
+or amplifying floating-point noise. A near-zero-norm tier vector yields a cosine
+score near zero, which falls below both early-exit thresholds and produces
+automatic fall-through to the next tier.
+
+**Note on approximate unit normalization.** For any nonzero prefix with
+$\varepsilon > 0$:
+
+$$
+\lVert \vec{u}_k \rVert_2
+= \frac{\lVert \vec{v}_{1:k} \rVert_2}{\sqrt{\lVert \vec{v}_{1:k} \rVert_2^2 + \varepsilon^2}}
+< 1
+$$
+
+So regularized prefix vectors are **approximately** unit-normalized. The
+approximation becomes negligible when the prefix norm is large relative to
+$\varepsilon$; with $\varepsilon = 10^{-8}$ and ordinary float32 prefix norms
+this difference is not operationally significant, but the distinction matters
+for formal correctness.
+
+Implemented in [`sidecar/embed/matryoshka.go`](../sidecar/embed/matryoshka.go)
+and [`sidecar/store/libravdb.go`](../sidecar/store/libravdb.go).
+
+Cascade search uses:
+
+- L1: `64d` with early-exit threshold $\theta_{L1} = 0.65$
+- L2: `256d` with early-exit threshold $\theta_{L2} = 0.75$
+- L3: `768d`
+
+These thresholds are calibrated on held-out cosine rank correlation with the
+768d ground truth for the chosen embedding model. They control the
+precision/recall tradeoff of the cascade and are not required to preserve exact
+ranking — rank preservation at reduced dimension is approximate by design of
+Matryoshka prefix embeddings, not a mathematical guarantee. The L1 and L2 tiers
+function as recall-oriented coarse filters; the false-positive rate at each tier
+is an explicit design parameter controlled by $\theta_{L1}$ and $\theta_{L2}$.
+If the embedding model changes, both thresholds must be re-derived from the new
+model's ROC curve against 768d ground truth.
+
+The search exits early when a tier's best score exceeds the configured threshold;
+otherwise it falls through to the next tier. Empty lower-tier collections
+degrade gracefully because:
+
+$$
+\max(\emptyset) = 0
+$$
+
+and $0$ is below both early-exit thresholds by design.
+
+Backfill condition:
+
+- L3 is the source of truth
+- L1 and L2 are derived caches
+- if an L1 or L2 insert fails, a dirty-tier marker is recorded
+- startup backfill reconstructs the missing tier vector from L3
+
+**Note on $\varepsilon$ calibration.** The value $\varepsilon = 10^{-8}$ is
+appropriate for float32 embeddings where pathological near-zero norms are
+numerical artifacts. If the embedding model changes, verify that near-zero norms
+in the new model are indeed artifacts and not meaningful signal before retaining
+this value.
+
+## 5. Compaction Clustering
+
+Compaction groups raw session turns into deterministic chronological clusters
+and replaces each cluster with one summary record. The intent is to turn many
+highly local turns into fewer retrieval-worthy summaries.
+
+Implemented in [`sidecar/compact/summarize.go`](../sidecar/compact/summarize.go).
+
+The current algorithm is not semantic k-means. It is deterministic chronological
+partitioning:
+
+1. collect eligible non-summary turns
+2. sort them by `(ts, id)`
+3. choose target cluster size $k$
+4. normalize the requested target cluster size:
+
+Non-positive runtime inputs are normalized to the shipped default
+$k = 20$ before clustering. After normalization, the effective target size must
+satisfy $k \ge 1$.
+
+5. derive cluster count:
+
+Let $n$ be the number of eligible turns. The cluster count is:
+
+$$
+c = \left\lceil \frac{\max(n,\,1)}{k} \right\rceil
+$$
+
+6. assign turn $i$ to cluster:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{clusterIndex}(i) = \left\lfloor \frac{i \cdot c}{\max(n,\,1)} \right\rfloor
+$$
+
+The $\max(n, 1)$ guards prevent division by zero when $n = 0$. When $n \ge 1$,
+these are identical to the unguarded forms $\lceil n/k \rceil$ and
+$\lfloor (i \cdot c)/n \rfloor$.
+
+When $n < k$, the formula produces $c = 1$ and all turns map to cluster 0: a
+single cluster containing fewer turns than the target size. Single-member
+clusters should be tagged with method `trivial` so that downstream consumers can
+apply a different quality interpretation if needed.
+
+This yields contiguous chronological buckets of roughly equal size while
+avoiding nondeterministic clustering behavior.
+
+The summarizer input for cluster $C_j$ is the ordered turn sequence:
+
+$$
+C_j = [t_1, t_2, \dots, t_m]
+$$
+
+with each element carrying turn id and text.
+
+The output is a summary record $s(C_j)$ with:
+
+- summary text
+- source ids
+- confidence
+- method
+- `decay_rate = 1 - confidence`
+
+Implemented across [`sidecar/compact/summarize.go`](../sidecar/compact/summarize.go),
+[`sidecar/summarize/engine.go`](../sidecar/summarize/engine.go), and
+[`sidecar/summarize/onnx_local.go`](../sidecar/summarize/onnx_local.go).
+
+For the first real-model benchmark pass comparing raw T5 confidence against
+Nomic-space preservation metrics and the hard preservation gate, see
+[`compaction-evaluation.md`](./compaction-evaluation.md).
+
+### 5.1 Semiotic Mismatch
+
+The system uses:
+
+- T5-small as an optional local abstractive decoder
+- Nomic `nomic-embed-text-v1.5` as the canonical retrieval embedding space
+
+Those models do not measure the same thing.
+
+The raw T5 confidence term is:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{conf}_{\mathrm{t5}}(s, C_j) =
+\exp\!\left(\frac{1}{m}\sum_{i=1}^{m}\log p(x_i \mid x_{<i}, C_j)\right)
+$$
+
+where $x_i$ are generated summary tokens. This measures decoder
+self-consistency, not geometric preservation in the vector space used later for
+retrieval.
+
+So a T5 summary can be locally confident while still drifting away from the
+source cluster in Nomic space.
+
+### 5.2 Nomic-Space Preservation
+
+Let the embedding function be:
+
+$$
+E : \text{text} \to \mathbb{R}^d
+$$
+
+For a source cluster $C_j = \langle t_1, \dots, t_n \rangle$, define:
+
+$$
+v_i = E(t_i)
+$$
+
+$$
+\mu_C = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n} v_i
+$$
+
+$$
+v_s = E(s)
+$$
+
+where cosine similarity renormalizes vectors at comparison time, so $\mu_C$
+does not need separate unit normalization in the definition below.
+
+The primary preservation term is centroid alignment:
+
+$$
+Q_{\mathrm{align}}(s, C_j) = \cos(v_s, \mu_C)
+$$
+
+The secondary preservation term is average positive source coverage:
+
+$$
+Q_{\mathrm{cover}}(s, C_j) =
+\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\max(0, \cos(v_s, v_i))
+$$
+
+The Nomic-space confidence term is then:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{conf}_{\mathrm{nomic}}(s, C_j) =
+\max\!\left(0,\;\min\!\left(1,\;\frac{Q_{\mathrm{align}} + Q_{\mathrm{cover}}}{2}\right)\right)
+$$
+
+This is the canonical compaction quality signal because it is defined in the
+same geometric space the vector store uses at retrieval time.
+
+### 5.3 Preservation Gate
+
+Before an abstractive T5 summary is accepted, it must pass a hard preservation
+gate:
+
+$$
+Q_{\mathrm{align}}(s, C_j) \ge \tau_{\mathrm{preserve}}
+$$
+
+with the shipped default:
+
+$$
+\tau_{\mathrm{preserve}} = 0.65
+$$
+
+If the abstractive summary fails this test, the system rejects it and falls back
+to deterministic extractive compaction.
+
+This means the decoder may propose a summary, but Nomic-space preservation
+decides whether it is faithful enough to become memory.
+
+### 5.4 Final Confidence
+
+For extractive summaries, the final stored confidence is:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{confidence}(s) = \mathrm{conf}_{\mathrm{nomic}}(s, C_j)
+$$
+
+For accepted abstractive T5 summaries, the final stored confidence is a
+Nomic-heavy hybrid:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{confidence}(s) =
+\lambda \cdot \mathrm{conf}_{\mathrm{nomic}}(s, C_j)
++ (1-\lambda)\cdot \mathrm{conf}_{\mathrm{t5}}(s, C_j)
+$$
+
+with the shipped default:
+
+$$
+\lambda = 0.8
+$$
+
+So Nomic-space preservation remains the dominant term, while T5 decoder
+confidence contributes only auxiliary stability information.
+
+Therefore:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{confidence}(s) \in [0,1]
+$$
+
+for all valid inputs, because both $\mathrm{conf}_{\mathrm{nomic}}$ and
+$\mathrm{conf}_{\mathrm{t5}}$ are bounded in $[0,1]$ and the hybrid is a convex
+combination.
+
+### 5.5 Retrieval Decay Multiplier
+
+The retrieval decay metadata is then:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{decay\_rate}(s) = 1 - \mathrm{confidence}(s)
+$$
+
+and the retrieval quality multiplier from Section 1 becomes:
+
+$$
+Q(s) = 1 - \delta \cdot \mathrm{decay\_rate}(s)
+$$
+
+Given $\delta \in [0,1]$ and $\mathrm{confidence}(s) \in [0,1]$, the decay rate
+is in $[0,1]$ and therefore:
+
+$$
+Q(s) \in [1-\delta,\, 1] \subseteq [0,1]
+$$
+
+At the shipped default $\delta = 0.5$, this constrains summary quality weights
+to:
+
+$$
+Q(s) \in [0.5,\, 1.0]
+$$
+
+This makes compaction load-bearing in retrieval rather than archival only.
+
+## 6. Why These Pieces Compose
+
+The full quality loop is:
+
+$$
+\text{high-value turns}
+\rightarrow \text{better clusters}
+\rightarrow \text{higher summary confidence}
+\rightarrow \text{lower decay rate}
+\rightarrow \text{higher retrieval score}
+$$
+
+That is the system-level reason the math is distributed across ingestion,
+compaction, and retrieval instead of existing only in one scoring function.
+
+For rigor, this section should be read in two parts:
+
+- The upstream step
+  `high-value turns -> better clusters -> higher summary confidence`
+  is an engineering hypothesis supported by preservation metrics and empirical
+  calibration evidence. It is not a pure algebraic proof obligation because it
+  depends on learned-model behavior.
+- The downstream step
+  `higher summary confidence -> lower decay rate -> higher retrieval score`
+  is a formal and implementation-correspondence obligation. It follows from:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{decay\_rate}(s) = 1 - \mathrm{confidence}(s)
+$$
+
+and
+
+$$
+Q(s) = 1 - \delta \cdot \mathrm{decay\_rate}(s),
+\qquad
+S_{\mathrm{final}}(s) = S_{\mathrm{base}}(s) \cdot Q(s)
+$$
+
+Under equal base score $S_{\mathrm{base}}$ and fixed $\delta \in [0,1]$,
+higher confidence implies lower decay, larger $Q(s)$, and therefore a larger
+final retrieval score. This downstream monotonic composition is the part that
+must be locked by exact code-level tests before later retrieval architecture
+work proceeds.
+
+## 7. Two-Pass Discovery Scoring
+
+This section documents the reviewed scoring and assembly model for the
+two-pass retrieval system. Parts of this section are now implemented in
+[`src/scoring.ts`](../src/scoring.ts),
+[`src/context-engine.ts`](../src/context-engine.ts),
+[`src/continuity.ts`](../src/continuity.ts), and the sidecar store/RPC
+adapter. Remaining unimplemented or approximate pieces should be treated as
+explicit follow-on work, not as permission to relax the mathematical contract.
+
+The design goal is to separate:
+
+1. invariant documents that must always be present
+2. cheap discovery over variant documents
+3. selective second-pass expansion under a hard prompt budget
+
+### 7.1 Foundational Definitions
+
+Let the retrievable document corpus be:
+
+$$
+\mathbf{D}=\{d_1, d_2, \ldots, d_n\}
+$$
+
+and let the query space be $\mathbf{Q}$.
+
+Let the embedding function:
+
+$$
+\varphi : \mathbf{D}\cup\mathbf{Q}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}^m
+$$
+
+map documents and queries to unit vectors:
+
+$$
+\lVert \varphi(x) \rVert_2 = 1 \qquad \forall x \in \mathbf{D}\cup\mathbf{Q}
+$$
+
+The gating function is:
+
+$$
+G : \mathbf{Q}\times\mathbf{D}\rightarrow \{0,1\}
+$$
+
+and determines whether a document is injected for a query.
+
+### 7.2 Corpus Decomposition
+
+The reviewed AST partitioning model in [`ast-v2.md`](./ast-v2.md) refines the
+older binary invariant-or-variant split into three authored tiers plus a
+continuity carve-out inside the retrievable variant corpus.
+
+The authored corpus is partitioned into hard invariants, soft invariants, and
+variant memory:
+
+$$
+\mathbf{D} = \mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2\cup\mathcal{V},
+\qquad
+\mathcal{I}_1\cap\mathcal{I}_2=\mathcal{I}_1\cap\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{I}_2\cap\mathcal{V}=\emptyset
+$$
+
+The tier membership predicate is:
+
+$$
+\iota : \mathbf{D}\rightarrow \{0,1,2\}
+$$
+
+with:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{I}_1 = \{d\in\mathbf{D}\mid \iota(d)=1\}
+$$
+
+and:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{I}_2 = \{d\in\mathbf{D}\mid \iota(d)=2\}
+\qquad
+\mathcal{V} = \{d\in\mathbf{D}\mid \iota(d)=0\}
+$$
+
+Here:
+
+- $\mathcal{I}_1$ is the hard invariant set, injected exactly and never
+  truncated
+- $\mathcal{I}_2$ is the soft invariant sequence, injected by longest-prefix
+  truncation in authored order
+- $\mathcal{V}$ is the retrievable variant corpus
+
+For OpenClaw, the intended implementation is that authored documents such as
+`AGENTS.md` and `souls.md` are compiled into $\mathcal{I}_1$, $\mathcal{I}_2$,
+and $\mathcal{V}$ at load time rather than discovered monolithically at query
+time.
+
+The hard authored guarantee is:
+
+$$
+\iota(d)=1 \Rightarrow G(q,d)=1 \qquad \forall q\in\mathbf{Q}
+$$
+
+Soft invariants are also authored constants, but unlike $\mathcal{I}_1$ they
+are budget-elastic. Let the authored order on $\mathcal{I}_2$ be:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{I}_2=\langle d^{(2)}_1,d^{(2)}_2,\dots,d^{(2)}_m\rangle
+$$
+
+and define the longest-prefix operator:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{Pref}(\mathcal{I}_2;\,b)=\langle d^{(2)}_1,\dots,d^{(2)}_j\rangle
+$$
+
+where:
+
+$$
+j=\max\left\{r\in\{0,\dots,m\}\ \middle|\ \sum_{i=1}^{r}\mathrm{toks}(d^{(2)}_i)\le b\right\}
+$$
+
+When continuity is enabled, the runtime further refines the variant corpus into
+an exact recent raw suffix and the remaining retrievable variant set:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{V}=T_{\mathrm{recent}}\cup\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}},
+\qquad
+T_{\mathrm{recent}}\cap\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}}=\emptyset
+$$
+
+Only $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}}$ participates in semantic retrieval. The
+recent tail is preserved exactly and budgeted separately.
+
+### 7.3 Document Authority Weight
+
+Each retrievable variant document carries a precomputed authority weight:
+
+$$
+\omega(d)=\alpha_r\cdot r(d)+\alpha_f\cdot f(d)+\alpha_a\cdot a(d)
+$$
+
+with:
+
+$$
+\alpha_r+\alpha_f+\alpha_a=1, \qquad \alpha_r,\alpha_f,\alpha_a \in [0,1]
+$$
+
+where:
+
+$$
+r(d)=\exp\!\left(-\lambda_r\cdot \Delta t(d)\right)
+$$
+
+$$
+f(d)=\frac{\log(1+\mathrm{acc}(d))}{\log\!\left(1+\max_{d'\in\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}}}\mathrm{acc}(d')+1\right)}
+$$
+
+$$
+a(d)\in[0,1]
+$$
+
+Here $\lambda_r > 0$ is the recency decay constant with units $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$,
+and $\Delta t(d) \ge 0$ is document age in seconds.
+
+The $+1$ in the denominator of $f(d)$, but not the numerator, implements minimal
+additive smoothing that guarantees a defined value at cold start. The asymmetry
+is deliberate: a document with zero accesses should score $f(d) = 0$ exactly,
+which the unsmoothed numerator preserves. When
+$\max_{d'\in\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}}}\mathrm{acc}(d') = 0$, the denominator equals $\log 2$
+and:
+
+$$
+f(d) = 0 \qquad \forall d\in\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}}
+$$
+
+cleanly deferring frequency weight to $r(d)$ and $a(d)$ until access history
+accumulates.
+
+Because $r(d)\in(0,1]$, $f(d)\in[0,1]$, and $a(d)\in[0,1]$, and $\omega(d)$
+is a convex combination of these terms:
+
+$$
+\omega(d)\in[0,1]
+$$
+
+For variant nodes extracted from core authored identity documents,
+[`ast-v2.md`](./ast-v2.md) sets $a(d)=1.0$. This lets the planned discovery
+score incorporate recency, access frequency, and authored authority without
+baking those concerns into the raw cosine term.
+
+### 7.4 Pass 1: Coarse Semantic Filtering
+
+Pass 1 computes cosine similarity:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{sim}(q,d)=\varphi(q)^\top \varphi(d) \in [-1,1]
+$$
+
+The raw top-$k_1$ candidate set is:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{C}_1^{\mathrm{raw}}(q)=\mathrm{TopK}_{d\in\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}}}\!\left(k_1,\,\mathrm{sim}(q,d)\right)
+$$
+
+with filtered coarse set:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{C}_1(q)=\left\{d\in\mathcal{C}_1^{\mathrm{raw}}(q)\mid \mathrm{sim}(q,d)\ge \theta_1\right\}
+$$
+
+where $\theta_1\in[-1,1]$.
+
+The purpose of this pass is breadth with cheap semantic recall. Documents below
+$\theta_1$ are rejected even if they land in the top-$k_1$ set, because the
+first pass must not admit semantically orthogonal noise into second-pass work.
+
+### 7.5 Pass 2: Normalized Hybrid Scoring
+
+Let the query keyword extractor return:
+
+$$
+K = \mathrm{KeyExt}(q)
+$$
+
+and define normalized keyword coverage:
+
+$$
+M_{norm}(K,d)=\frac{|K\cap \mathrm{terms}(d)|}{\max(|K|,\,1)}\in[0,1]
+$$
+
+When $|K| > 0$ this is identical to $|K\cap \mathrm{terms}(d)| / |K|$. When
+$|K| = 0$ (the query yields no extractable keywords), the numerator is zero and
+$M_{norm} = 0$ exactly, collapsing the second-pass score to pure semantic
+retrieval — the correct degenerate behavior.
+
+The proposed normalized second-pass score is:
+
+$$
+S_{final}(d)=
+\frac{
+\omega(d)\cdot\max(\mathrm{sim}(q,d),\,0)\cdot\left(1+\kappa\cdot M_{norm}(K,d)\right)
+}{
+1+\kappa
+}
+$$
+
+where $\kappa\in[0,\infty)$.
+
+The normalized second-pass score form above was suggested during design review
+by GitHub contributor [@JuanHuaXu](https://github.com/JuanHuaXu). The broader
+two-pass architecture in this section remains project-authored.
+
+This form is preferred over a hard clamp such as $\min(\mathrm{term},1)$
+because clamping discards ranking information at the high end of the score
+distribution. The denominator $(1+\kappa)$ gives an analytic bound instead of
+truncating the result.
+
+The second-pass candidate set is:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{C}_2(q)=\mathrm{TopK}_{d\in\mathcal{C}_1(q)}\!\left(k_2,\,S_{final}(d)\right)
+$$
+
+with $k_2 \le k_1$ and $k_1, k_2 \in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}$.
+
+### 7.6 Bounded Range and Interpretation of $\kappa$
+
+Let:
+
+$$
+s=\max(\mathrm{sim}(q,d),\,0)\in[0,1]
+$$
+
+Then:
+
+$$
+S_{final}(d)=\frac{\omega(d)\cdot s\cdot(1+\kappa M_{norm}(K,d))}{1+\kappa}
+$$
+
+Because $M_{norm}(K,d)\in[0,1]$ and $\kappa\ge 0$:
+
+$$
+1 \le 1+\kappa M_{norm}(K,d) \le 1+\kappa
+$$
+
+so:
+
+$$
+0 \le \frac{1+\kappa M_{norm}(K,d)}{1+\kappa} \le 1
+$$
+
+Combining with $s\in[0,1]$ and $\omega(d)\in[0,1]$:
+
+$$
+0 \le S_{final}(d)\le \omega(d)\le 1
+$$
+
+This yields a clean interpretation of $\kappa$:
+
+- $\kappa = 0$ gives pure semantic retrieval
+- $\kappa = 0.5$ allows keyword coverage to provide up to a one-third relative
+  boost before normalization
+- $\kappa = 1.0$ makes full lexical support restore the pure semantic ceiling
+  while penalizing semantic-only matches with no keyword support
+
+A reasonable initial experiment value is:
+
+$$
+\kappa = 0.3
+$$
+
+### 7.7 Multi-Hop Expansion
+
+Let the authored hop graph be:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{G}=(\mathbf{D},\, E)
+$$
+
+where edges are registered in document metadata at authorship time.
+
+For a document $d$, define its hop neighborhood:
+
+$$
+H(d)=\{d'\in\mathbf{D}\mid (d,d')\in E\}
+$$
+
+The hop expansion set is:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{C}_{hop}(q)=\bigcup_{d\in\mathcal{C}_2(q)} H(d)\setminus\mathcal{C}_2(q)
+$$
+
+Each hop candidate inherits a decayed score from its best parent:
+
+$$
+S_{hop}(d')=
+\eta_{\mathrm{hop}}\cdot
+\max_{d\in\mathcal{C}_2(q),\; d'\in H(d)} S_{final}(d)
+$$
+
+with hop decay factor $\eta_{\mathrm{hop}}\in(0,1)$.
+
+**Note on symbol disambiguation.** The symbol $\eta_{\mathrm{hop}}$ is used
+here deliberately to avoid collision with $\lambda_s$ (scope recency, Section 2)
+and $\lambda_r$ (authority-weight recency, Section 7.3). The parameters have
+different semantics and units: $\lambda_r$ has units $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, while
+$\eta_{\mathrm{hop}}$ is a dimensionless attenuation factor in $(0,1)$.
+
+The filtered hop set is:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{C}_{hop}^{*}(q)=\{d'\in\mathcal{C}_{hop}(q)\mid S_{hop}(d')\ge\theta_{hop}\}
+$$
+
+with $\theta_{hop}\in[0,1]$.
+
+Since $S_{final}(d)\in[0,1]$ and $\eta_{\mathrm{hop}}\in(0,1)$:
+
+$$
+S_{hop}(d')\in[0,\,1)
+$$
+
+### 7.8 Final Assembly Under a Token Budget
+
+Variant projection is:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{Proj}(\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}},\, q)=\mathcal{C}_2(q)\cup\mathcal{C}_{hop}^{*}(q)
+$$
+
+The final injected context is:
+
+$$
+C_{\mathrm{total}}(q)=\mathcal{I}_1\cup \mathcal{I}_2^{*}\cup T_{\mathrm{recent}}\cup \mathrm{Proj}(\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}},\, q)
+$$
+
+Let the total prompt budget be $\tau$, and let the reserve fractions satisfy:
+
+$$
+\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\beta\in[0,1],
+\qquad
+\alpha_1+\alpha_2+\beta\le 1
+$$
+
+where:
+
+- $\alpha_1$ reserves hard authored budget
+- $\alpha_2$ reserves soft authored budget
+- $\beta$ is the target recent-tail budget fraction
+
+Define the hard authored token mass:
+
+$$
+\tau_{\mathcal{I}_1}=\sum_{d\in\mathcal{I}_1}\mathrm{toks}(d)
+$$
+
+**Required startup hard authored invariant:**
+
+$$
+\tau_{\mathcal{I}_1}\le \alpha_1\tau
+$$
+
+This must be enforced at startup or configuration validation time. If violated,
+the system cannot simultaneously satisfy "the hard invariant set is never
+truncated" and "total injected tokens do not exceed the total budget."
+Initialization must fail or the deployment must be reconfigured.
+
+Let $T_{\mathrm{base}}$ be the mandatory recent-tail base suffix defined in
+[`continuity.md`](./continuity.md): the shortest raw suffix of the active
+session containing at least the most recent $m$ turns. The mandatory continuity
+fit requirement is:
+
+$$
+\tau_{\mathcal{I}_1} + \sum_{d\in T_{\mathrm{base}}}\mathrm{toks}(d)\le \tau
+$$
+
+Otherwise no legal assembly exists that preserves both hard invariants and the
+minimum continuity tail. The runtime must surface degraded mode explicitly; it
+must not silently truncate $\mathcal{I}_1$ or split the mandatory recent tail.
+
+The effective soft authored budget is:
+
+$$
+\tau_{\mathcal{I}_2}^{\mathrm{eff}}
+=
+\min\!\left(
+\alpha_2\tau,\,
+\tau-\tau_{\mathcal{I}_1}-\sum_{d\in T_{\mathrm{base}}}\mathrm{toks}(d)
+\right)
+$$
+
+and the injected soft invariant prefix is:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{I}_2^{*}=\mathrm{Pref}(\mathcal{I}_2;\,\tau_{\mathcal{I}_2}^{\mathrm{eff}})
+$$
+
+Define the recent-tail target:
+
+$$
+\tau_{\mathrm{tail}}^{\mathrm{target}}=\beta\tau
+$$
+
+The exact recent-tail selector is the longest bundle-safe raw suffix containing
+$T_{\mathrm{base}}$ and satisfying:
+
+$$
+\sum_{d\in T_{\mathrm{recent}}}\mathrm{toks}(d)
+\le
+\min\!\left(
+\max\!\left(\tau_{\mathrm{tail}}^{\mathrm{target}},\,
+\sum_{d\in T_{\mathrm{base}}}\mathrm{toks}(d)\right),\,
+\tau-\tau_{\mathcal{I}_1}-\sum_{d\in\mathcal{I}_2^{*}}\mathrm{toks}(d)
+\right)
+$$
+
+This preserves the continuity rule that the mandatory recent suffix wins over
+the nominal tail target when they conflict, while still respecting the total
+prompt budget.
+
+The residual retrievable variant budget is:
+
+$$
+\tau_{\mathcal{V}}(q)
+=
+\tau-\tau_{\mathcal{I}_1}
+-\sum_{d\in\mathcal{I}_2^{*}}\mathrm{toks}(d)
+-\sum_{d\in T_{\mathrm{recent}}}\mathrm{toks}(d)
+$$
+
+which must satisfy:
+
+$$
+\tau_{\mathcal{V}}(q)\ge 0
+$$
+
+Documents in $\mathrm{Proj}(\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}}, q)$ are injected in descending
+score order until:
+
+$$
+\sum_{d\in \text{injected}} \mathrm{toks}(d)\le\tau_{\mathcal{V}}
+$$
+
+The merged score sequence is:
+
+$$
+\sigma(d)=
+\begin{cases}
+S_{final}(d) & d\in\mathcal{C}_2(q) \\
+S_{hop}(d) & d\in\mathcal{C}_{hop}^{*}(q)
+\end{cases}
+$$
+
+### 7.9 Complete Gating Definition
+
+$$
+G(q,d)=
+\begin{cases}
+1 & \text{if } d\in\mathcal{I}_1\cup\mathcal{I}_2^{*}\cup T_{\mathrm{recent}} \\
+\mathbf{1}[d\in\mathcal{C}_2(q)\cup\mathcal{C}_{hop}^{*}(q)] & \text{if } d\in\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}}
+\end{cases}
+$$
+
+### 7.10 Required Runtime Invariants
+
+The implementation must preserve these properties:
+
+1. Invariant completeness:
+
+$$
+\forall d\in\mathcal{I}_1,\; \forall q\in\mathbf{Q}: d\in C_{\mathrm{total}}(q)
+$$
+
+2. Soft invariant order preservation:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{I}_2^{*}\text{ is a prefix of }\mathcal{I}_2
+$$
+
+3. Partition integrity:
+
+$$
+\mathcal{I}_1\cap\mathcal{I}_2=\mathcal{I}_1\cap\mathcal{V}=\mathcal{I}_2\cap\mathcal{V}=\emptyset,
+\qquad
+T_{\mathrm{recent}}\cap\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}}=\emptyset
+$$
+
+4. Mandatory recent-tail completeness:
+
+$$
+T_{\mathrm{base}}\subseteq T_{\mathrm{recent}}
+$$
+
+5. Score boundedness:
+
+$$
+S_{final}(d)\in[0,1]
+$$
+
+6. Token budget respect:
+
+$$
+\sum_{d\in C_{\mathrm{total}}(q)} \mathrm{toks}(d)\le\tau
+$$
+
+with $\mathcal{I}_1$ never truncated, $\mathcal{I}_2$ truncated only by
+longest-prefix selection, and the recent-tail base never silently dropped.
+
+7. Compaction boundary safety:
+
+Compaction may operate only on $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{rest}}$, never on
+$T_{\mathrm{recent}}$.
+
+8. Hop termination:
+
+The authored hop graph should be acyclic, or the runtime must cap hop depth at
+one to guarantee termination.
+
+9. Edge-case safety:
+
+No valid input in the declared domain may produce a NaN, a negative score, or a
+division-by-zero. This includes at minimum:
+
+- cold-start corpus with $\max \mathrm{acc}=0$
+- empty extracted keyword set with $|K|=0$
+- zero eligible clustering turns with $n=0$
+- near-zero-norm Matryoshka prefix vectors
+- empty hop neighborhoods
+- empty or zero-residual $\tau_{\mathcal{V}}(q)$ after invariant and
+  continuity reservation
+
+7. Quality multiplier boundedness:
+
+$$
+\mathrm{confidence}(s)\in[0,1],
+\qquad
+Q(d)\in[1-\delta,\,1]\subseteq[0,1]
+$$
+
+for all valid inputs with $\delta\in[0,1]$.