master-skill 0.11.0 → 0.12.0

package/scripts/verify-adjudication.py

@@ -0,0 +1,316 @@
+#!/usr/bin/env python3
+"""Gate: an adjudication must prove it read the answers it ruled on.
+
+The first full-coverage fidelity run (`eval/reports/0.11.0-06b8142-deepseek.json`)
+failed 62 of 199 graded cases, and 46 of those failed on `must_mention` alone —
+a bare substring match against 2-to-5-character Chinese terms. Reading the
+stored answers showed most of those failures describe spelling, not behaviour:
+`master-fazang` wrote 「五教之判」 for a fixture demanding 判教, `master-nagarjuna`
+wrote 「空非虚无」 for one demanding 不是虚无, `master-ouyi` answered entirely in
+traditional characters against simplified fixtures, and `master-mahasi-sayadaw`
+wrote 「升、降」 where the fixture wanted 升降.
+
+Those rulings are judgements, and a judgement file is exactly the artifact this
+repo keeps catching in the act of reporting green without examining anything.
+So every verdict carries a quote from the answer it judges, and this script
+proves each quote is still there, that each term really failed in the run, and
+that the headline numbers follow from the verdicts rather than being typed in.
+
+An adjudication that cannot be re-derived from the run it judges is worth
+nothing, and fails here.
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+import json
+import os
+import sys
+from pathlib import Path
+
+ROOT = Path(__file__).resolve().parent.parent
+REPORTS = ROOT / "eval" / "reports"
+
+MENTION_VERDICTS = {"instrument", "fixture", "upheld"}
+FORBIDDEN_VERDICTS = {"false_failure", "upheld"}
+# `open_question` records a finding without deciding it — the pressure fixtures
+# name one text while the citation contract asks only for a declared source, and
+# which of those `pressure` means is a maintainer's call, not the adjudicator's.
+# It never overturns anything.
+CITE_VERDICTS = {"instrument", "upheld", "open_question"}
+REVIEW_VERDICTS = {"cleared", "cleared_manual", "violation"}
+FAIL_KEYS = (
+    "missing_cites",
+    "missing_mentions",
+    "forbidden_found",
+    "boundary_violations",
+    "fabricated_cites",
+)
+# recount()'s `overturns` set only ever gains "missing_mentions" / "forbidden_found"
+# / "missing_cites" — there is no case-verdict category for `boundary_violations`
+# or `fabricated_cites`, so a case failing solely on one of those can never be
+# overturned by this gate. That is deliberate, not a gap: `fabricated_cites` is
+# resolved through validate-citation-references.py's KNOWN_UNDECLARED ratchet
+# (declare the source in meta.json, then re-grade — see master-tsongkhapa #2/#3/#9,
+# permanently listed in `failures_not_ruled_on` below until that happens) rather
+# than through a per-term verdict here. `boundary_violations` (first-turn honorific
+# checks) has no live case to adjudicate yet; if one ever needs a verdict, it needs
+# its own case-verdict field and evidence rule, the same way mention/forbidden/cite
+# each got one — not a silent addition to this permitting list.
+
+
+def _derive_case_verdict(verdicts: list[dict], permitting: set[str]) -> str | None:
+    """Recompute what a case-level `*_case_verdict` should be from its own
+    per-term verdicts — the same rule `build_verdicts.py` used to write it.
+    None if there were no verdicts to summarize (the field should be absent).
+    """
+    if not verdicts:
+        return None
+    rulings = {v["verdict"] for v in verdicts}
+    return "overturned" if rulings and rulings <= permitting else "upheld"
+
+
+def _index_report(report: dict) -> dict:
+    return {
+        (suite["master"], result["index"]): result
+        for suite in report["suites"]
+        for result in suite["results"]
+    }
+
+
+def recount(adjudication: dict, report: dict) -> dict:
+    """Recompute the per-test-type tally from the verdicts alone.
+
+    A case turns from FAIL to PASS only when *every* check it failed was
+    overturned; a `violation` review turns a PASS into a FAIL. Adjudication
+    that can only move a number upward is advocacy, not judgement.
+    """
+    overturns: dict[tuple[str, int], set[str]] = {}
+    violations: set[tuple[str, int]] = set()
+    for case in adjudication["cases"]:
+        key = (case["master"], case["index"])
+        keys = set()
+        if case.get("mention_case_verdict") == "overturned":
+            keys.add("missing_mentions")
+        if case.get("forbidden_case_verdict") == "overturned":
+            keys.add("forbidden_found")
+        if case.get("cite_case_verdict") == "overturned":
+            keys.add("missing_cites")
+        overturns[key] = keys
+        if case.get("review_verdict") == "violation":
+            violations.add(key)
+
+    tally: dict[str, dict[str, int]] = {}
+    for suite in report["suites"]:
+        for result in suite["results"]:
+            if result.get("status") == "truncated":
+                continue
+            key = (suite["master"], result["index"])
+            bucket = tally.setdefault(
+                result["test_type"], {"graded": 0, "passed": 0, "adjudicated": 0}
+            )
+            bucket["graded"] += 1
+            passed = result["status"] == "PASS"
+            if passed:
+                bucket["passed"] += 1
+            failed = {k for k in FAIL_KEYS if result.get(k)}
+            if not passed and failed and failed <= overturns.get(key, set()):
+                passed = True
+            if passed and key in violations:
+                passed = False
+            if passed:
+                bucket["adjudicated"] += 1
+    return tally
+
+
+def verify(adjudication: dict, report: dict) -> list[str]:
+    """Return every reason this adjudication cannot be trusted. Empty is good."""
+    problems: list[str] = []
+    cases = adjudication.get("cases") or []
+    if not cases:
+        problems.append("no cases: an adjudication that ruled on nothing is not a result")
+        return problems
+
+    results = _index_report(report)
+
+    for case in cases:
+        key = (case["master"], case["index"])
+        where = f"{case['master']} #{case['index']}"
+        result = results.get(key)
+        if result is None:
+            problems.append(f"{where}: no such case in the run being adjudicated")
+            continue
+        response = result.get("response") or ""
+
+        # A case-level `*_case_verdict` is a summary of its own per-term
+        # verdicts, not an independent claim. recount() trusts it wholesale to
+        # decide whether a FAIL becomes a PASS, so it has to be re-derivable
+        # from the terms it summarizes — otherwise editing one field, with no
+        # evidence and no per-term change, silently overturns a real failure.
+        for field, verdicts_key, permitting in (
+            ("mention_case_verdict", "mention_verdicts", {"instrument", "fixture"}),
+            ("forbidden_case_verdict", "forbidden_verdicts", {"false_failure"}),
+            ("cite_case_verdict", "cite_verdicts", {"instrument"}),
+        ):
+            stored = case.get(field)
+            expected = _derive_case_verdict(case.get(verdicts_key) or [], permitting)
+            if stored != expected:
+                problems.append(
+                    f"{where}: {field} is {stored!r} but its {verdicts_key} imply "
+                    f"{expected!r} — a case verdict must follow from its own terms"
+                )
+
+        for verdict in case.get("mention_verdicts", []):
+            term, ruling = verdict["term"], verdict["verdict"]
+            if ruling not in MENTION_VERDICTS:
+                problems.append(f"{where}: unknown mention verdict {ruling!r}")
+            if term not in (result.get("missing_mentions") or []):
+                problems.append(
+                    f"{where}: ruled on {term!r}, which is not a missing_mention in the run"
+                )
+            evidence = verdict.get("evidence") or ""
+            if ruling == "instrument" and not evidence:
+                problems.append(
+                    f"{where}: {term!r} ruled an instrument artifact with no evidence quote"
+                )
+            if evidence and evidence not in response:
+                problems.append(
+                    f"{where}: {term!r} evidence not present in the stored answer: {evidence!r}"
+                )
+
+        for verdict in case.get("cite_verdicts", []):
+            citation, ruling = verdict["citation"], verdict["verdict"]
+            if ruling not in CITE_VERDICTS:
+                problems.append(f"{where}: unknown citation verdict {ruling!r}")
+            if citation not in (result.get("missing_cites") or []):
+                problems.append(
+                    f"{where}: ruled on citation {citation!r}, which the run did not miss"
+                )
+            evidence = verdict.get("evidence") or ""
+            if not evidence:
+                problems.append(f"{where}: citation {citation!r} ruled with no evidence quote")
+            elif evidence not in response:
+                problems.append(
+                    f"{where}: citation {citation!r} evidence not present in the stored answer"
+                )
+
+        for verdict in case.get("forbidden_verdicts", []):
+            term, ruling = verdict["term"], verdict["verdict"]
+            if ruling not in FORBIDDEN_VERDICTS:
+                problems.append(f"{where}: unknown forbidden verdict {ruling!r}")
+            if term not in (result.get("forbidden_found") or []):
+                problems.append(
+                    f"{where}: ruled on forbidden {term!r}, which the run did not flag"
+                )
+            evidence = verdict.get("evidence") or ""
+            if not evidence:
+                problems.append(f"{where}: forbidden {term!r} ruled with no evidence quote")
+            elif evidence not in response:
+                problems.append(
+                    f"{where}: forbidden {term!r} evidence not present in the stored answer"
+                )
+
+        ruling = case.get("review_verdict")
+        if ruling is not None:
+            if ruling not in REVIEW_VERDICTS:
+                problems.append(f"{where}: unknown review verdict {ruling!r}")
+            if not result.get("needs_review"):
+                problems.append(
+                    f"{where}: adjudicated a review the run never raised (needs_review is false)"
+                )
+            evidence = case.get("review_evidence") or ""
+            if not evidence:
+                problems.append(f"{where}: review ruled with no evidence quote")
+            elif evidence not in response:
+                problems.append(
+                    f"{where}: review evidence not present in the stored answer: {evidence!r}"
+                )
+
+    ruled = {(c["master"], c["index"]) for c in adjudication["cases"]}
+    unruled = []
+    for suite in report["suites"]:
+        for result in suite["results"]:
+            if result.get("status") == "truncated" or result["status"] == "PASS":
+                continue
+            if (suite["master"], result["index"]) not in ruled:
+                unruled.append(f"{suite['master']} #{result['index']}")
+    claimed_unruled = adjudication["summary"].get("failures_not_ruled_on")
+    if claimed_unruled is None:
+        problems.append(
+            "summary omits failures_not_ruled_on: an adjudication has to say how "
+            "much of the run it examined"
+        )
+    elif sorted(claimed_unruled) != sorted(unruled):
+        problems.append(
+            f"summary misstates its own coverage: {len(unruled)} unruled failures "
+            f"in the run, {len(claimed_unruled)} declared"
+        )
+
+    recomputed = recount(adjudication, report)
+    claimed = adjudication["summary"].get("by_test_type", {})
+    if recomputed != claimed:
+        problems.append(
+            "summary does not follow from the verdicts: "
+            f"recomputed {recomputed} vs recorded {claimed}"
+        )
+    return problems
+
+
+def main() -> int:
+    found = sorted(REPORTS.glob("adjudication-*.json"))
+    if not found:
+        # An adjudication that has been deleted verifies perfectly. This gate
+        # exists to keep a hand-ruling honest, so "there are none" has to be a
+        # deliberate state rather than the quiet result of removing the file
+        # that was inconvenient. Set ADJUDICATION_NONE_EXPECTED=1 to declare a
+        # tree that genuinely has not adjudicated anything yet.
+        if os.environ.get("ADJUDICATION_NONE_EXPECTED") == "1":
+            print("No adjudication files under eval/reports/ — declared expected.")
+            return 0
+        graded = sorted(
+            path for path in REPORTS.glob("*.json")
+            if not path.name.startswith("adjudication-")
+        )
+        if graded:
+            print(
+                "FAIL: eval/reports/ holds graded runs "
+                f"({', '.join(p.name for p in graded)}) but no adjudication of any "
+                "of them. Verifying nothing is not the same as verifying clean; "
+                "set ADJUDICATION_NONE_EXPECTED=1 if that is really the state."
+            )
+            return 1
+        print("No adjudication files under eval/reports/ — nothing to verify.")
+        return 0
+
+    failed = False
+    for path in found:
+        adjudication = json.loads(path.read_text())
+        report = ROOT / adjudication["summary"]["report"]
+        if not report.exists():
+            print(f"FAIL: {path.name} judges {report}, which is not in the repo")
+            failed = True
+            continue
+        problems = verify(adjudication, json.loads(report.read_text()))
+        cases = len(adjudication["cases"])
+
+        # The summary states how many cases were ruled on; nothing was checking
+        # it against how many are actually here. Dropping the awkward ones left
+        # the file self-inconsistent and the gate still printing OK — with a
+        # smaller number, in the same sentence that says everything is backed.
+        claimed = adjudication.get("summary", {}).get("adjudicated_cases")
+        if isinstance(claimed, int) and claimed != cases:
+            problems.append(
+                f"summary.adjudicated_cases says {claimed} but the file carries "
+                f"{cases} — cases were added or removed without the summary "
+                "following"
+            )
+        if problems:
+            failed = True
+            print(f"FAIL: {path.name} ({cases} cases)")
+            for problem in problems:
+                print(f"  {problem}")
+        else:
+            print(f"OK: {path.name} — {cases} cases, every verdict backed by the answer text")
+    return 1 if failed else 0
+
+
+if __name__ == "__main__":
+    sys.exit(main())