dialectical-framework 2.1.0__tar.gz → 2.1.1__tar.gz

{dialectical_framework-2.1.0 → dialectical_framework-2.1.1}/PKG-INFO

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Metadata-Version: 2.3
 Name: dialectical-framework
-Version: 2.1.0
+Version: 2.1.1
 Summary: A dialectical framework for augmented intelligence. AI reasoning powered with dialectics supports humans in: system optimization (psychology, engineering, business, politics, etc.); dispute resolution (mediation, conflicts, negotiations, etc.); decision-making (dilemmas, challenging situations, win-win, etc.).
 License: MIT
 Keywords: dialectics,dialectical-reasoning,synthesis,thesis-antithesis,ai,artificial-intelligence,llm,reasoning-framework,philosophy,logic,argumentation,conflict-resolution,decision-making,critical-thinking,semantic-graph,mirascope,pydantic,perspectives,polarity-reasoning

{dialectical_framework-2.1.0 → dialectical_framework-2.1.1}/pyproject.toml

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 [tool.poetry]
 name = "dialectical-framework"
-version = "2.1.0"
+version = "2.1.1"
 description = "A dialectical framework for augmented intelligence. AI reasoning powered with dialectics supports humans in: system optimization (psychology, engineering, business, politics, etc.); dispute resolution (mediation, conflicts, negotiations, etc.); decision-making (dilemmas, challenging situations, win-win, etc.)."
 authors = ["Evaldas Taroza <evaldas@dialexity.com>"]
 readme = "README.md"

{dialectical_framework-2.1.0 → dialectical_framework-2.1.1}/src/dialectical_framework/agents/consultant/consultant.py

@@ -425,11 +425,13 @@ class Consultant:
         """
         from dialectical_framework.concerns.view_sketch import (
             ViewSketchDto, exploration_view_from_sketch, history_ask,
-            history_text, perspective_from_sketch, view_sketch_prompt)
+            history_text, judge_context, perspective_from_sketch,
+            view_sketch_prompt)
 
         import asyncio
         import dataclasses
 
+        from dialectical_framework.agents.advisor.migration import person_turns
         from dialectical_framework.concerns.tetrad_candidates import (
             clamp_attempts, ranking, select_sketch)
 
@@ -459,7 +461,6 @@ class Consultant:
             sketch_turn._messages = list(history)
             return await sketch_turn.submit(ViewSketchDto, request)
 
-        n = clamp_attempts(attempts)
         # Fully parallel, deliberately. On a COLD cache all N draws write the
         # ~12k system head instead of one writing and the rest reading (~$0.06
         # a card at list prices, 2026-10-06), and the fix would be to await the
@@ -470,6 +471,13 @@ class Consultant:
         # (`utils/bedrock_provider.py::_CACHE_TTL`) attacks the same cost
         # without the latency, which is the trade taken. Revisit only with a
         # measured cold-start rate.
+        n = clamp_attempts(attempts)
+        # The SAME request N times, by measurement: N identical requests draw
+        # the same opposition N times, reworded (the first app, 52/52 cards),
+        # and asking draw 2..N for a different one made the spares differ and
+        # the winner worse (CC 19/40 against 27/40, 2026-10-13,
+        # `tests/e2e/probe_view_turn_ask.py`) — so this is a coherence re-roll,
+        # and a host's "another" served from `runners_up` is a rewording.
         drawn = await asyncio.gather(*(draw() for _ in range(n)), return_exceptions=True)
         sketches = [d for d in drawn if not isinstance(d, BaseException)]
         failures = [d for d in drawn if isinstance(d, BaseException)]
@@ -503,13 +511,20 @@ class Consultant:
         # screen shows is that first tension. The judged draws that lost come
         # back too, best first, as `runners_up` — a host's "again"/"another"
         # can serve one without a new call (the module's stated intent).
+        # The judge reads the PERSON's turns as its context (`judge_context`):
+        # it never sees T or A, and called blind — as it was here until
+        # 2026-10-13, while the build and the persisted path passed their
+        # material — it scored the four aspects against nothing.
         runners_up: list[PerspectiveView] = []
         if len(sketches) > 1:
             firsts = [s.tensions[0] if s.tensions else None for s in sketches]
             judgeable = [i for i, t in enumerate(firsts) if t is not None and all(
                 (getattr(t, k) or "").strip() for k in ("thesis", "antithesis", "t_plus", "t_minus", "a_plus", "a_minus"))]
             if len(judgeable) > 1:
-                _best, verdicts = await select_sketch([firsts[i] for i in judgeable])
+                _best, verdicts = await select_sketch(
+                    [firsts[i] for i in judgeable],
+                    context=judge_context(person_turns(history)),
+                )
                 order = ranking(verdicts)
                 sketch = sketches[judgeable[order[0]]]
                 runners_up = [perspective_from_sketch(firsts[judgeable[i]]) for i in order[1:]]

{dialectical_framework-2.1.0 → dialectical_framework-2.1.1}/src/dialectical_framework/concerns/tetrad_candidates.py

@@ -12,6 +12,22 @@ parallel, the two control statements judged for each, the best kept. The
 runners-up are returned, not thrown away — a person's "another" can be one of
 them without a new call.
 
+The N draws are N identical requests, and they draw the SAME opposition N
+times, reworded (the first app's handoff, 2026-10-13: 52/52 cards, the chosen
+A at 0.79 similarity to its spares, a served runner-up "the same tension
+re-worded" in 8/8 retries) — a coherence re-roll, which is what the figures
+above measure, not a choice between tensions. Asking draw 2..N for a
+DIFFERENT opposition was tried and rejected the same day on a pre-registered
+A/B (`tests/e2e/probe_view_turn_ask.py`, pinned, 40 utterances): the spares
+became different positions (75/80) and the winner lost — CC 19/40 against
+27/40, positions 34 against 37, 1.26x the seconds. Temperature is not a
+lever either: both one-shot writers think, and a thinking call takes the
+provider's default. The rejected ask and the record:
+`docs/dev-notes/antithesis-selection.md`, "Best-of-3 drew the same tetrad
+three times". What the handoff found beside it is kept: the ranking reads
+dialectical validity after the pass floor (`ranking`), and the view turn's
+judge reads the person's words (`view_sketch.judge_context`).
+
 What this must NOT become: a loop that optimises against the judge. The judge
 never sees the thesis or antithesis — it scores the four aspects' coherence
 and passes a MIRROR antithesis more readily than a genuine position — so a
@@ -75,17 +91,41 @@ def clamp_attempts(attempts: Optional[int], default: Optional[int] = None) -> in
 
 @dataclass(frozen=True)
 class SketchVerdict:
-    """The two control statements' coherence scores for one sketch."""
+    """The two control statements' scores for one sketch: coherence (CC) on
+    both, and dialectical validity (DV) on both where the judge gave it.
+
+    DV is scored in the SAME call as CC (`CoherenceEvaluationDto`), so carrying
+    it costs nothing; until 2026-10-13 it was computed on every draft and
+    dropped here, and the ranking read coherence alone (the first app's
+    handoff). `None` on the DV fields means the judge did not say — a verdict
+    built from CC alone — and such a verdict ranks BELOW any with a DV, never
+    as a zero (a zero is a claim).
+    """
 
     t_plus_without_a_plus: float
     a_plus_without_t_plus: float
     reasoning: str = ""
+    t_plus_without_a_plus_dv: Optional[float] = None
+    a_plus_without_t_plus_dv: Optional[float] = None
 
     @property
     def floor(self) -> float:
         """The weaker statement — what the pass/fail rule reads."""
         return min(self.t_plus_without_a_plus, self.a_plus_without_t_plus)
 
+    @property
+    def mean(self) -> float:
+        return (self.t_plus_without_a_plus + self.a_plus_without_t_plus) / 2
+
+    @property
+    def dialectical_validity(self) -> Optional[float]:
+        """The mean DV of the two statements — whether the relationship is a
+        natural, generative one rather than a forced pairing. `None` when the
+        judge gave none."""
+        if self.t_plus_without_a_plus_dv is None or self.a_plus_without_t_plus_dv is None:
+            return None
+        return (self.t_plus_without_a_plus_dv + self.a_plus_without_t_plus_dv) / 2
+
     @property
     def passes(self) -> bool:
         return self.floor >= CONCEPTUAL_COHERENCE_THRESHOLD
@@ -153,6 +193,8 @@ async def judge_sketches(
                 t_plus_without_a_plus=first.coherence_score,
                 a_plus_without_t_plus=second.coherence_score,
                 reasoning=f"{first.reasoning} / {second.reasoning}".strip(" /"),
+                t_plus_without_a_plus_dv=first.dialectical_validity,
+                a_plus_without_t_plus_dv=second.dialectical_validity,
             )
         except Exception as exc:  # noqa: BLE001 — degrade to "unjudged"
             logger.warning("Judging a sketch failed; it sorts last: %s", exc)
@@ -167,10 +209,11 @@ async def select_sketch(
     """Judge every candidate (gathered) and return the index of the best plus
     all verdicts (None where judging failed).
 
-    Ranking: the weaker control statement first (the pass rule), then the
-    mean, then the earlier draw — a deterministic tie-break, not a preference.
-    A candidate whose judging failed sorts last; if every judging failed the
-    first draw is kept, which is exactly what `attempts=1` would have done.
+    Ranking (`ranking`): the weaker control statement first (the pass rule),
+    then dialectical validity, then the mean coherence, then the earlier draw
+    — a deterministic tie-break, not a preference. A candidate whose judging
+    failed sorts last; if every judging failed the first draw is kept, which
+    is exactly what `attempts=1` would have done.
 
     ONE candidate is never judged: there is nothing to select among, so
     `attempts=1` costs no extra call.
@@ -183,15 +226,30 @@ async def select_sketch(
 
 
 def ranking(verdicts: Sequence[Optional[SketchVerdict]]) -> list[int]:
-    """Candidate indices best first, by `select_sketch`'s rule: the weaker
-    control statement, then the mean, then the earlier draw; unjudged last.
-    `[0]` is the winner; the rest are the runners-up in order."""
+    """Candidate indices best first: the weaker control statement, then
+    dialectical validity, then the mean coherence, then the earlier draw;
+    unjudged last. `[0]` is the winner; the rest are the runners-up in order.
+
+    Why the floor stays FIRST: it is the pass rule, and every best-of-N figure
+    on record (CC 36/40 on the view turn, 30/40 on the build, 26/46 on
+    documents) is a keep-any-passing-draw figure — a term ahead of it would
+    trade those for an unmeasured one. Why DV comes next, ahead of the mean:
+    DV is the paper's acceptance term beside SP (the Advisor's quality floor
+    already reads it), and it answers the question the choice is about — of
+    two draws that both hold, which is the LIVE tension rather than the
+    forced pairing — where the mean is only the other statement's score,
+    already above the floor. On the archive DV tracks CC at 0.96, so this
+    moves few selections — the draws of one request are rewordings of one
+    tension. A verdict with no DV sorts
+    below any with one (`-1.0` exists only to lose this term, like
+    `explorer._causality_probability`), never as a zero.
+    """
 
-    def key(index: int) -> tuple[int, float, float, int]:
+    def key(index: int) -> tuple[int, float, float, float, int]:
         verdict = verdicts[index]
         if verdict is None:
-            return (0, 0.0, 0.0, -index)
-        mean = (verdict.t_plus_without_a_plus + verdict.a_plus_without_t_plus) / 2
-        return (1, verdict.floor, mean, -index)
+            return (0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -index)
+        dv = verdict.dialectical_validity
+        return (1, verdict.floor, -1.0 if dv is None else dv, verdict.mean, -index)
 
     return sorted(range(len(verdicts)), key=key, reverse=True)

{dialectical_framework-2.1.0 → dialectical_framework-2.1.1}/src/dialectical_framework/concerns/tetrad_sketch.py

@@ -128,8 +128,10 @@ class TetradSketch(ReasonableConcern[ViewSketchPerspectiveDto], SettingsAware):
         attempts: Optional[int] = None,
     ) -> ViewSketchPerspectiveDto:
         """One tension, whole. With `attempts` > 1 (`clamp_attempts`, max 3) the
-        call is drawn that many times IN PARALLEL and the framework's own
-        coherence check picks the best (`concerns/tetrad_candidates.py`); the
+        call is drawn that many times IN PARALLEL — the SAME request each
+        time: asking later draws for a different opposition was measured and
+        rejected on the view turn (`view_sketch_prompt`'s docstring) — and
+        the framework's own coherence check picks the best (`concerns/tetrad_candidates.py`); the
         runners-up stay on `self.alternatives` with their verdicts, the
         winner's verdict on `self.verdict`. Measured reason and the guard
         against turning this into a loop: that module's docstring.
@@ -171,6 +173,12 @@ class TetradSketch(ReasonableConcern[ViewSketchPerspectiveDto], SettingsAware):
                 "drawn": len(candidates),
                 "selected": best,
                 "floors": [None if v is None else round(v.floor, 2) for v in verdicts],
+                "validity": [
+                    None if v is None or v.dialectical_validity is None
+                    else round(v.dialectical_validity, 2)
+                    for v in verdicts
+                ],
+                "oppositions": [c.antithesis for c in candidates],
                 "alternatives": [c.model_dump() for c, _v in self.alternatives],
             }
         return tension

{dialectical_framework-2.1.0 → dialectical_framework-2.1.1}/src/dialectical_framework/concerns/view_sketch.py

@@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ The view BEFORE the upgrade, not a lighter version of the checked one.
 
 from __future__ import annotations
 
-from typing import Optional
+from typing import Optional, Sequence
 
 from pydantic import BaseModel, Field
 
@@ -215,6 +215,33 @@ For each pair:
 THESIS_IS_FIXED = """The thesis (T) is GIVEN, in the person's own words, and it is FIXED: carry it into the view exactly as it stands — do not reword, shorten, sharpen or generalise it, and do not put a different position in its place. Everything else in the tetrad is built around it as given."""
 
 
+
+#: How much of the person's own words the view turn's JUDGE reads (characters,
+#: newest turns kept whole). The judge never sees T or A, so without context
+#: it scores the four aspects' coherence against nothing: the persisted path
+#: and the one-shot build pass their material, and the view turn passed ""
+#: until 2026-10-13 (the first app's handoff, §3). The person's turns are what
+#: the migration mines as material too (`migration.person_turns`); a card's
+#: history is one utterance, a long consultation is bounded here so six judge
+#: calls do not each re-read it whole (no cache breakpoint sits on a judge
+#: call). Policy, not config.
+JUDGE_CONTEXT_CHARS = 4_000
+
+
+def judge_context(person_texts: Sequence[str], budget: int = JUDGE_CONTEXT_CHARS) -> str:
+    """The person's turns as the judge's `<context>`, in order, the NEWEST
+    kept whole within `budget` and older ones dropped first — a tetrad drawn
+    now answers what was said last. Empty when nothing was said."""
+    kept: list[str] = []
+    used = 0
+    for text in reversed([t.strip() for t in person_texts if t and t.strip()]):
+        if kept and used + len(text) > budget:
+            break
+        kept.append(text)
+        used += len(text)
+    return "\n\n".join(reversed(kept))
+
+
 def view_sketch_prompt(
     focus: Optional[str], max_words: int, thesis: Optional[str] = None
 ) -> str:
@@ -239,6 +266,16 @@ def view_sketch_prompt(
     (`THESIS_IS_FIXED`): the stance ask comes OFF — there is nothing to find —
     and the view is asked for the ONE tension that position stands in, because
     a pinned T says nothing about any other tension and a card shows one.
+
+    ONE request for every draw of a best-of-N, by measurement (2026-10-13,
+    `tests/e2e/probe_view_turn_ask.py`, pinned, 40 utterances, two arms the
+    same day): asking draw 2..N for a different opposition made every card's
+    spares a different position (75/80 positions) and cost the WINNER —
+    coherence 19/40 against 27/40 with identical draws, positions 34 against
+    37, 1.26x the seconds — so the draws stay a re-roll of one request and
+    the spares stay the same tension reworded. The rejected ask and its
+    figures: `docs/dev-notes/antithesis-selection.md`, "Best-of-3 drew the
+    same tetrad three times".
     """
     pinned = (thesis or "").strip()
     focus_line = (