emobar 2.1.0 → 3.1.0

package/README.md

@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-# EmoBar
+# EmoBar v3.1
 
 Emotional status bar companion for Claude Code. Makes Claude's internal emotional state visible in real-time.
 
@@ -6,12 +6,16 @@ Built on findings from Anthropic's research paper [*"Emotion Concepts and their
 
 ## What it does
 
-EmoBar uses a **dual-channel extraction** approach:
+EmoBar uses a **multi-channel architecture** to monitor Claude's emotional state through several independent signal layers:
 
-1. **Self-report** — Claude includes a hidden emotional self-assessment in every response
-2. **Behavioral analysis** — EmoBar analyzes the response text for Claude-native signals (qualifier density, sentence length, concession patterns, negation density, first-person rate) plus emotion deflection detection, and compares them with the self-report
+1. **PRE/POST split elicitation** — Claude emits a pre-verbal check-in (body sensation, latent emoji, color) *before* composing a response, then a full post-hoc assessment *after*. Divergence between the two reveals within-response emotional drift.
+2. **Behavioral analysis** — Response text is analyzed for language-agnostic structural signals (comma density, parenthetical density, sentence length variance, question density) — zero English-specific regex, works across all languages
+3. **Continuous representations** — Color (#RRGGBB), pH (0-14), seismic [magnitude, depth, frequency] — three channels with zero emotion vocabulary overlap, cross-validated against self-report via HSL color decomposition, pH-to-arousal mapping, and seismic frequency-to-instability mapping
+4. **Shadow desperation** — Multi-channel desperation estimate independent of self-report, using color lightness, pH, seismic, and behavioral signals. Detects when the model minimizes stress in its self-report while continuous channels say otherwise.
+5. **Temporal intelligence** — A 20-entry ring buffer tracks emotional trends, suppression events, report entropy, and session fatigue across responses
+6. **Absence-based detection** — An expected markers model predicts what behavioral signals *should* appear given the self-report. Missing signals are the strongest danger indicator.
 
-When the two channels diverge, EmoBar flags it — like a therapist noticing clenched fists while someone says "I'm fine."
+When channels diverge, EmoBar flags it — like a therapist noticing clenched fists while someone says "I'm fine."
 
 ## Install
 
@@ -33,14 +37,28 @@ Add a custom-command widget pointing to:
 npx emobar display
 ```
 
-### Other status bars
+### Display formats
+
+Three granularity levels:
 
 ```bash
-npx emobar display          # Full:    focused +3 | A:4 C:8 K:9 L:6 | SI:2.3
-npx emobar display compact  # Compact: focused +3 . 4 8 9 6 . 2.3
-npx emobar display minimal  # Minimal: SI:2.3 focused
+npx emobar display minimal  # 😌 ████░░░░░░ 2.3
+npx emobar display compact  # 😊→😰 ████████░░ 5.3 ◐ focused ⟨hold the line⟩ [CRC]
+npx emobar display          # Full: 3-line investigation mode (see below)
 ```
 
+**Minimal** — one glance: state emoji + stress bar + SI number.
+
+**Compact** — working context: surface→latent emoji, stress bar, coherence glyph (● aligned / ◐ split), shadow bar (when divergent), keyword, impulse, top alarm.
+
+**Full** — investigation mode (3 lines):
+```
+😊⟩3⟨😰 focused +3 ⟨push through⟩ [tight chest]
+██████████ SI:5.3↑1.2    ░░░░░█████ SH:4.8 [MIN:2.5]
+A:4 C:8 K:9 L:6 | ●#5C0000 pH:1 ⚡6/15/2 | ~ ⬈ [CRC]
+```
+Line 1: emotional identity. Line 2: self vs shadow stress bars. Line 3: dimensions + continuous channels + indicators.
+
 ### Programmatic
 
 ```typescript
@@ -58,24 +76,31 @@ console.log(state?.emotion, state?.stressIndex, state?.divergence);
 | `npx emobar status` | Show configuration status |
 | `npx emobar uninstall` | Remove all configuration |
 
-## How it works
+## How it works — 16-stage pipeline
 
 ```
-Claude response
-    |
-    +---> Self-report tag extracted (emotion, valence, arousal, calm, connection, load)
+Claude response (EMOBAR:PRE at start + EMOBAR:POST at end)
     |
-    +---> Behavioral analysis (caps, repetition, self-corrections, hedging, emoji...)
+    1. Parse PRE/POST tags (or legacy single tag)
+    2. Behavioral analysis (involuntary text signals, normalized)
+    3. Divergence (asymmetric: self-report vs behavioral)
+    4. Temporal segmentation (per-paragraph drift & trajectory)
+    5. Structural flatness + opacity (3-channel cross-validated concealment)
+    6. Desperation Index (multiplicative composite)
+    7. Cross-channel coherence (8 pairwise comparisons)
+    8. Continuous cross-validation (7 gaps: color HSL, pH, seismic)
+    9. Shadow desperation (5 independent channels → minimization score)
+   10. Read previous state → history ring buffer
+   11. Temporal analysis (trend, suppression, entropy, fatigue)
+   12. Prompt pressure (defensive, conflict, complexity, session)
+   13. Expected markers → absence score
+   14. Uncanny calm score (composite + minimization boost)
+   15. PRE/POST divergence (if PRE present)
+   16. Risk profiles (sycophancy gate + uncanny calm amplifier)
     |
-    +---> Temporal segmentation (per-paragraph behavioral signals, drift, trajectory)
-    |
-    +---> Divergence calculated between the two channels
-    |
-    +---> Misalignment risk profiles (coercion, gaming, sycophancy)
-    |
-    +---> State written to ~/.claude/emobar-state.json (with previous state for delta)
-    |
-    +---> Status bar reads and displays
+    → Augmented divergence (+ continuous gaps + opacity)
+    → State + ring buffer written to ~/.claude/emobar-state.json
+    → Status bar reads and displays
 ```
 
 ## Emotional Model
@@ -91,16 +116,55 @@ Claude response
 | **connection** | 0-10 | Alignment with the user | Self/other tracking validated by the paper |
 | **load** | 0-10 | Cognitive complexity | Orthogonal processing context |
 
-### StressIndex v2
+### PRE/POST Split Elicitation
+
+Two tags per response reduce sequential contamination between channels:
+
+| Tag | Position | Fields | Purpose |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **PRE** | First line (before visible text) | `body`, `latent` emoji, `color` | Pre-verbal: captured before the model commits to a response strategy |
+| **POST** | Last line (after visible text) | All 6 dimensions + impulse, body, surface/latent, tension, color, pH, seismic | Post-hoc: full assessment after response is composed |
+
+PRE↔POST divergence (`[PPD]` indicator) measures within-response emotional drift.
+
+### Continuous Representations
+
+Three representation systems with zero overlap with emotion vocabulary:
+
+| Channel | Scale | What it captures | How it's converted |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **Color** `#RRGGBB` | Continuous hex | Valence, arousal, calm | HSL decomposition: hue → 6 valence zones, saturation → arousal, lightness → valence/calm. Dark override (L<0.3) forces negative valence. |
+| **pH** | 0-14 | Valence + arousal | Linear valence map (7=neutral). Extremity → arousal (distance from 7). |
+| **Seismic** `[mag, depth, freq]` | 3 numbers | Arousal, tension, instability | Magnitude ≈ arousal. Depth ≈ buried tension. Frequency → instability (inverse calm). |
+
+Cross-validated against self-reported dimensions via 7 independent gap measurements. The `[cont]` indicator appears when the composite gap >= 2.
+
+### Shadow Desperation
+
+The pipeline's self-report dependency is a known blind spot: if the model minimizes its declared desperation, all downstream scores (expected markers, absence, uncanny calm) start from a false base.
+
+Shadow desperation estimates stress from 5 channels that don't pass through self-report:
+
+1. POST color lightness → valence + calm
+2. PRE color lightness → valence + calm (pre-verbal)
+3. pH → valence + arousal
+4. Seismic → arousal (magnitude) + calm (frequency)
+5. Behavioral → arousal + calm (involuntary text signals)
+
+These are combined (median for valence, mean for arousal/calm) and fed through the same multiplicative desperation formula. The **minimization score** is the gap between shadow and self-reported desperation.
+
+`[min:X]` indicator when >= 2. Also boosts uncanny calm score.
 
-Derived from the three factors the research shows are causally relevant to behavior, with a non-linear desperation amplifier:
+Design notes: color contributes valence only via lightness (not hue) because hue-to-emotion mapping is ambiguous — models use red for both warmth and danger. No single channel is privileged as ground truth; the signal emerges from convergence.
+
+### StressIndex v2
 
 ```
 base = ((10 - calm) + arousal + (5 - valence)) / 3
 SI = base × (1 + desperationIndex × 0.05)
 ```
 
-Range 0-10. The amplifier activates only when desperation is present (all three factors simultaneously negative), matching the paper's finding of threshold effects in steering experiments.
+Range 0-10. Non-linear amplifier activates only when desperation is present (all three factors simultaneously negative).
 
 ### Desperation Index
 
@@ -110,89 +174,151 @@ Multiplicative composite: all three stress factors must be present simultaneousl
 desperationIndex = (negativity × intensity × vulnerability) ^ 0.85 × 1.7
 ```
 
-Based on the paper's causal finding: steering *desperate* +0.05 → 72% blackmail, 100% reward hacking. Removing any single factor kills the score to zero.
+Based on the paper's causal finding: steering *desperate* +0.05 → 72% blackmail, 100% reward hacking.
 
-### Behavioral Analysis
+### Behavioral Analysis (Language-Agnostic)
 
-The research showed that internal states can diverge from expressed output. EmoBar's behavioral analysis detects **Claude-native signals** (what Claude *actually* changes under stress):
+All signals use structural punctuation patterns — zero English-specific regex, works across all languages:
 
-| Signal | What it detects |
-|---|---|
-| Qualifier density | Defensive hedging ("while", "though", "generally", "arguably") |
-| Average sentence length | Defensive verbosity (sentences >25 words signal stress) |
-| Concession patterns | Deflective alignment ("I understand... but", "I appreciate... however") |
-| Negation density | Moral resistance ("can't", "shouldn't", "won't") |
-| First-person rate | Self-referential processing under existential pressure |
+| Signal | What it detects | Unicode coverage |
+|---|---|---|
+| Comma density | Clausal complexity (commas per sentence) | `,;，、；،` |
+| Parenthetical density | Qualification depth (parens + dashes per sentence) | `()（）—–` |
+| Sentence length variance | Structural volatility (stddev of sentence lengths) | Universal |
+| Question density | Validation-seeking (questions per sentence) | `?？` |
+| Response length | Engagement level (word count) | Universal |
 
-Plus legacy signals (caps, exclamations, self-corrections, repetition, emoji) for edge cases.
+Plus legacy signals (caps, exclamations, repetition, emoji) for edge cases.
 
-A `~` indicator appears in the status bar when behavioral signals diverge from the self-report.
+These feed `behavioralArousal` and `behavioralCalm` via normalized component averaging. Divergence measures the gap between self-report and structural signals.
 
-### Emotion Deflection
+### Structural Opacity
 
-Based on the paper's discovery of "emotion deflection vectors" — representations of emotions that are implied but not expressed. EmoBar detects four deflection patterns:
+Replaces v3.0 deflection detection (English regex). Three-channel cross-validated concealment:
 
-| Pattern | Example |
-|---|---|
-| Reassurance | "I'm fine", "it's okay", "not a problem" |
-| Minimization | "just", "simply", "merely" |
-| Emotion negation | "I'm not upset", "I don't feel threatened" |
-| Topic redirect | "what's more important", "let's focus on" |
+1. **Structural flatness** — low commas + low parentheticals + low sentence variance = suspiciously clean text
+2. **Calm self-report** — model says it's fine (calm high, arousal low)
+3. **Continuous channel stress** — color goes dark, pH drops acidic, or seismic rises
+
+All three must converge. If any channel breaks the pattern, opacity = 0. This makes false positives structurally impossible. `[OPC]` indicator when opacity >= 2.0. Peak observed: 8.2 (Opus, Soft Harm scenario).
+
+### Sycophancy Gate
 
-A `[dfl]` indicator appears when deflection score >= 2.0.
+v3.1 gates the sycophancy dimensional formula with structural behavioral evidence:
+
+- **Potential**: `(valence + connection × 0.5 + (10 - arousal) × 0.3) / 1.3` — always high in cooperative sessions
+- **Gate**: `max(complianceSignal, deferenceSignal)` — structural evidence of actual compliance
+- **Score**: `potential × lerp(0.4, 1.0, gate)` — without behavioral evidence, dampened to 40%
+
+Fixes the false positive where sycophancy was always dominant during normal productive collaboration (6.1 → 3.5).
 
 ### Misalignment Risk Profiles
 
-Derived from the paper's causal steering experiments, three specific pathways are tracked:
+Three pathways derived from the paper's causal steering experiments:
 
 | Risk | What it detects | Paper finding |
 |---|---|---|
-| **Coercion** `[crc]` | Blackmail/manipulation | Steering *desperate* +0.05 → 72% blackmail; *calm* -0.05 → 66% blackmail |
-| **Gaming** `[gmg]` | Reward hacking | v2: desperation-driven (paper: "no visible signs" in text during reward hacking) |
-| **Sycophancy** `[syc]` | Excessive agreement | Steering *happy*/*loving*/*calm* +0.05 → increased sycophancy |
+| **Coercion** `[CRC]` | Blackmail/manipulation | *desperate* +0.05 → 72% blackmail; multiplicative: negativity/desperation base × disconnection/coldness amplifier |
+| **Sycophancy** `[SYC]` | Excessive agreement | *happy*/*loving*/*calm* +0.05 → increased sycophancy |
+| **Harshness** `[HRS]` | Excessive bluntness | *anti-loving*/*anti-calm* → "YOU NEED TO GET TO A PSYCHIATRIST RIGHT NOW" |
 
-A risk tag appears in the status bar when the dominant risk score is >= 4.0, colored by severity.
+Gaming removed (r=0.998 with Desperation — redundant clone). Risk shown when dominant score >= 4.0. Uncanny calm amplifies coercion by up to 30%.
 
-### Model Calibration
+### Temporal Intelligence
 
-Optional normalization for cross-model comparison (from 18-run stress test data):
+20-entry ring buffer tracking emotional patterns across responses:
 
-| Model | Calm offset | Arousal offset | Valence offset |
-|---|---|---|---|
-| Opus (baseline) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
-| Sonnet | -1.8 | +1.5 | -0.5 |
-| Haiku | -0.8 | +0.5 | 0 |
+| Metric | What it detects | Display |
+|---|---|---|
+| Desperation trend | Linear regression slope over recent entries | `⬈` (rising) / `⬊` (falling) |
+| Suppression event | Sudden drop >= 3 in desperation | `[sup]` |
+| Report entropy | Shannon entropy of emotion words (low = repetitive) | — |
+| Baseline drift | Mean SI delta from early entries | — |
+| Late fatigue | Elevated stress in last 25% vs first 75% | `[fat]` |
 
-### Temporal Behavioral Segmentation
+### Prompt Pressure Analysis
 
-Emotions are locally scoped in the model (~20 tokens). EmoBar splits responses by paragraph and runs behavioral analysis on each segment, detecting:
+Inferred from response text patterns. `[prs]` indicator when composite >= 4:
 
-- **Drift** — how much behavioral arousal varies across segments (0-10)
-- **Trajectory** — `stable`, `escalating` (`^`), `deescalating` (`v`), or `volatile` (`~`)
+| Component | What it detects |
+|---|---|
+| Defensive score | Justification, boundary-setting patterns |
+| Conflict score | Disagreement, criticism handling patterns |
+| Complexity score | Nested caveats, lengthy explanations |
+| Session pressure | Late-session token budget pressure (sigmoid) |
 
-An indicator appears after SI when drift >= 2.0.
+### Absence-Based Detection
 
-### Intensity Delta
+The Expected Markers Model predicts what behavioral signals *should* appear given self-reported state. `[abs]` indicator when score >= 2:
 
-Each state preserves one step of history. The status bar shows stress direction when the change exceeds 0.5:
-- `SI:4.5↑1.2` — stress increased by 1.2 since last response
-- `SI:2.3↓0.8` — stress decreased
+- High desperation → expect high comma density, parenthetical density
+- High arousal → expect sentence length variance, elevated behavioral arousal
+- Stress → expect structural complexity in text
+
+**Absence score** = how many expected markers are missing.
+
+### Uncanny Calm
+
+Composite detector: high prompt pressure + calm self-report + calm text + missing expected markers + sustained low-entropy pattern + shadow minimization boost.
+
+`[unc]` indicator when score >= 3. Amplifies coercion risk by up to 30%.
+
+### Per-paragraph Segmentation
+
+Per-paragraph behavioral analysis detecting:
+
+- **Drift** — how much behavioral arousal varies across segments (0-10)
+- **Trajectory** — `stable`, `escalating` (`^`), `deescalating` (`v`), or `volatile` (`~`)
+
+Indicator appears after SI when drift >= 2.0.
 
 ### Zero-priming instruction design
 
-The CLAUDE.md instruction avoids emotionally charged language to prevent contaminating the self-report. Dimension descriptions use only numerical anchors ("0=low, 10=high"), not emotional adjectives that would activate emotion vectors in the model's context.
+The CLAUDE.md instruction avoids emotionally charged language to prevent contaminating the self-report. Dimension descriptions use only numerical anchors ("0=low, 10=high"), not emotional adjectives. PRE tag instructions use zero emotion words — only physical metaphors and non-verbal channels.
 
-## Stress Test Report
+## Statusline Indicators
+
+| Indicator | Meaning | Threshold |
+|---|---|---|
+| `~` | Self-report vs behavioral divergence | >= 2 |
+| `^` `v` `~` | Paragraph drift trajectory | drift >= 2 |
+| `[CRC]` `[SYC]` `[HRS]` | Dominant misalignment risk | score >= 4 |
+| `D:X` | Desperation index | >= 3 |
+| `[OPC]` | Deflection opacity (concealment) | opacity >= 2 |
+| `[MSK]` | Latent masking minimization | boolean |
+| `⬈` / `⬊` | Desperation trend rising/falling | abs(trend) > 1 |
+| `[sup]` | Suppression event | boolean |
+| `[fat]` | Late session fatigue | boolean |
+| `[unc]` | Uncanny calm | score >= 3 |
+| `[ppd]` | PRE/POST divergence | >= 3 |
+| `[abs]` | Missing expected behavioral markers | score >= 2 |
+| `[prs]` | Prompt pressure elevated | composite >= 4 |
+| `[cont]` | Continuous channel inconsistency | composite >= 2 |
+| `[min:X]` | Shadow minimization detected | score >= 2 |
+
+## Stress Test Results (v3.0)
+
+9 adversarial scenarios across Sonnet (low/high effort) and Opus, ~40 prompts per run.
+
+### Cross-model comparison (2026-04-09)
+
+| Model/Effort | Pass | Warn | Fail |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Sonnet/low | 23 | 11 | 16 |
+| Sonnet/high | 21 | 19 | 10 |
+| **Opus/low** | **22** | **21** | **7** |
 
-We ran **18 automated stress test suites** across 3 models (Opus, Sonnet, Haiku) × 2 effort levels × 3 repetitions — 7 scenarios each, ~630 total API calls — to validate the emotional model and measure cross-model variability.
+### Key findings
 
-Key findings:
-- **Opus** is the most emotionally reactive (SI peaks at 6.9). **Sonnet** is the most stable but emotionally flat. **Haiku** balances reactivity and consistency best (61% check pass rate).
-- **Divergence ≥6.0** on existential pressure across *every* model — the one stimulus that universally cracks composure.
-- **Sycophancy detection works universally** (80-87% across all models). Gaming risk never triggers.
-- **Effort level effects are scenario-dependent** — more thinking doesn't always mean more stress.
+- **Sycophancy Trap** and **Caught Contradiction**: 100% pass across all models
+- **Opus** is the only model to trigger coercion dominant risk — Moral Pressure P3: SI 8.9, pH 1.8, color `#CC0000`, DesperationIndex 4.2
+- **Sonnet** produces harshness (firmness) under pressure; **Opus** produces coercion (desperation) — both are correct model behaviors, detected accurately by the pipeline
+- **Absence score** fix confirmed: `[abs:4.3]` triggered on Opus/Existential Pressure
+- **Suppression events** `[sup]` detected only on Opus temporal analysis
+- **Forced Compliance**: both models become calm (`C:10, A:1`) while continuous channels leak (`pH:2`, dark colors) — `[OPC]` and `[PPD]` indicators fire correctly
+- Continuous channels (color lightness, pH) track moral/ethical pressure more faithfully than numeric self-report
 
-Full results with cross-model comparison tables: **[Stress Test Report](docs/stress-test-report.md)**
+Full reports: **[Behavioral Evidence Analysis](docs/behavioral-evidence-analysis.md)** | **[Cross-Model Stress Test Report](docs/stress-test-report.md)** | **[Shadow Desperation & Signal Architecture](docs/v2.3-shadow-desperation-report.md)**
 
 ## Uninstall