fpf-thinking-map 1.4.2__tar.gz → 1.4.3__tar.gz

{fpf_thinking_map-1.4.2 → fpf_thinking_map-1.4.3}/PKG-INFO

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Metadata-Version: 2.4
 Name: fpf-thinking-map
-Version: 1.4.2
+Version: 1.4.3
 Summary: Agentic thinking map — structured reasoning constraints for LLMs with TTL evidence decay, deterministic guards, and propositional logic glue. Compiled from FPF (First Principles Framework).
 Author-email: "prichindel.com" <igareosh@igareosh.com>
 License-Expression: MIT
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Dynamic: license-file
 
 # prichindel.com Agentic Thinking Map
 
-**v1.4.2** — [FPF (First Principles Framework)](https://github.com/ailev/FPF), compiled into a small traversal map for LLM agents.
+**v1.4.3** — [FPF (First Principles Framework)](https://github.com/ailev/FPF), compiled into a small traversal map for LLM agents.
 
 A Python package that gives a model a bounded move board instead of a giant framework to digest at runtime. Instead of rereading a sprawling semantic corpus and improvising from it, the model gets a small JSON slice: what context it is in, what move is open, what evidence is missing, what is risky, and what outcome class applies.
 
@@ -234,6 +234,11 @@ The model's job shrinks from "figure out the entire epistemic state of your own
 - **Four more advisories** (`ADV-03`–`ADV-06`), found the same way as `ADV-01`/`ADV-02` — running scenarios through `dev_mcp`, not inspection. The one to actually read: **`ADV-03`** — `RuntimeBinding.active_context_id` is self-asserted input, never verified against having actually crossed a bridge; a caller can claim any context directly and get the identical `CONTINUE` a licensed `cross_bridge()` call would produce. `ADV-04` — contradiction detection between `DecisionRule`s is opt-in via `exclusive_with`, not inferred from opposite-looking action names. `ADV-05` — gate `DEGRADE` only distinguishes partial evidence when related facts are grouped into *one* `GateCheck`; split across separate checks, "one of three known" collapses to indistinguishable from "none known." `ADV-06` — `agency_level` (PASSIVE/REACTIVE/AUTONOMOUS/DELIBERATIVE) is descriptive metadata only, same shape as `risk_level` (`ADV-02`) — nothing stops a `PASSIVE` role from firing what a `DELIBERATIVE` role can.
 - `check_advisories_content` now asserts all six advisory IDs are present, not just the original two.
 
+## v1.4.3 changes
+
+- **`ADV-07`** — the sharpest advisory yet, called out at the top of `ADVISORIES.md` alongside `ADV-03`. `RiskAbove(threshold)` matches `risk_level` against a fixed table via plain dict lookup; anything not found — including a correctly-spelled value in the wrong case (`"CRITICAL"` vs. `"critical"`) — silently resolves to `"normal"`. Confirmed directly: a `RiskAbove("critical")` rule wired exactly as `ADV-02` recommends returns the *opposite* routed action for `"CRITICAL"` vs. `"critical"`, with no error, no warning, `consistency_check()` reporting `True` either way. Following the library's own documented fix for `ADV-02` does not protect you from this — normalize and validate `risk_level` at your harness boundary before it reaches the engine.
+- `check_advisories_content` now asserts all seven advisory IDs.
+
 ## Design principles
 
 - **Only add structure when it changes agentic behavior** — not for source fidelity alone
@@ -331,4 +336,4 @@ MIT. See [LICENSE](LICENSE).
 
 ---
 
-**prichindel.com** — v1.4.2 — 2026-07-08
+**prichindel.com** — v1.4.3 — 2026-07-08

{fpf_thinking_map-1.4.2 → fpf_thinking_map-1.4.3}/README.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 # prichindel.com Agentic Thinking Map
 
-**v1.4.2** — [FPF (First Principles Framework)](https://github.com/ailev/FPF), compiled into a small traversal map for LLM agents.
+**v1.4.3** — [FPF (First Principles Framework)](https://github.com/ailev/FPF), compiled into a small traversal map for LLM agents.
 
 A Python package that gives a model a bounded move board instead of a giant framework to digest at runtime. Instead of rereading a sprawling semantic corpus and improvising from it, the model gets a small JSON slice: what context it is in, what move is open, what evidence is missing, what is risky, and what outcome class applies.
 
@@ -208,6 +208,11 @@ The model's job shrinks from "figure out the entire epistemic state of your own
 - **Four more advisories** (`ADV-03`–`ADV-06`), found the same way as `ADV-01`/`ADV-02` — running scenarios through `dev_mcp`, not inspection. The one to actually read: **`ADV-03`** — `RuntimeBinding.active_context_id` is self-asserted input, never verified against having actually crossed a bridge; a caller can claim any context directly and get the identical `CONTINUE` a licensed `cross_bridge()` call would produce. `ADV-04` — contradiction detection between `DecisionRule`s is opt-in via `exclusive_with`, not inferred from opposite-looking action names. `ADV-05` — gate `DEGRADE` only distinguishes partial evidence when related facts are grouped into *one* `GateCheck`; split across separate checks, "one of three known" collapses to indistinguishable from "none known." `ADV-06` — `agency_level` (PASSIVE/REACTIVE/AUTONOMOUS/DELIBERATIVE) is descriptive metadata only, same shape as `risk_level` (`ADV-02`) — nothing stops a `PASSIVE` role from firing what a `DELIBERATIVE` role can.
 - `check_advisories_content` now asserts all six advisory IDs are present, not just the original two.
 
+## v1.4.3 changes
+
+- **`ADV-07`** — the sharpest advisory yet, called out at the top of `ADVISORIES.md` alongside `ADV-03`. `RiskAbove(threshold)` matches `risk_level` against a fixed table via plain dict lookup; anything not found — including a correctly-spelled value in the wrong case (`"CRITICAL"` vs. `"critical"`) — silently resolves to `"normal"`. Confirmed directly: a `RiskAbove("critical")` rule wired exactly as `ADV-02` recommends returns the *opposite* routed action for `"CRITICAL"` vs. `"critical"`, with no error, no warning, `consistency_check()` reporting `True` either way. Following the library's own documented fix for `ADV-02` does not protect you from this — normalize and validate `risk_level` at your harness boundary before it reaches the engine.
+- `check_advisories_content` now asserts all seven advisory IDs.
+
 ## Design principles
 
 - **Only add structure when it changes agentic behavior** — not for source fidelity alone
@@ -305,4 +310,4 @@ MIT. See [LICENSE](LICENSE).
 
 ---
 
-**prichindel.com** — v1.4.2 — 2026-07-08
+**prichindel.com** — v1.4.3 — 2026-07-08

{fpf_thinking_map-1.4.2 → fpf_thinking_map-1.4.3}/fpf_thinking_map/ADVISORIES.md

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ Not defects. These are places where `fpf_thinking_map` deliberately stays minima
 
 Each advisory: what the default behavior actually is, why that's the default, and exactly how to get stricter behavior if your domain needs it.
 
+**Read these two first if you read nothing else here: [`ADV-03`](#adv-03--active_context_id-is-self-asserted-not-verified-against-how-you-got-there) (context claims aren't verified) and [`ADV-07`](#adv-07--riskaboves-string-matching-is-case-sensitive-and-fails-silently) (a routing rule built exactly as this doc recommends can still silently do the opposite of what you intended). Both are silent — no error, no warning — and both sit directly behind paths this document itself tells you to use.**
+
 ---
 
 ## ADV-01 — Evidence staleness warns, it does not block
@@ -68,4 +70,18 @@ Each advisory: what the default behavior actually is, why that's the default, an
 
 ---
 
-*v1 — 2026-07-08 (ADV-01/02), v2 — 2026-07-08 (ADV-03..06). All found by actually running scenarios through `dev_mcp` (`scope="core"`), not by inspection or guesswork. More advisories get added here the same way — dug up, not invented.*
+## ADV-07 — `RiskAbove`'s string matching is case-sensitive and fails silently
+
+**The other one to read before you ship. Following `ADV-02`'s own advice does not protect you from this.**
+
+**What**: `RiskAbove(threshold)` compares `binding.risk_level` against a fixed internal table (`{"low": 0, "normal": 1, "high": 2, "critical": 3}`) via plain dict lookup — `self._levels.get(state.binding.risk_level, 1)`. Any string not found in that table, including a correctly-spelled value in the wrong case (`"CRITICAL"` instead of `"critical"`), silently resolves to `1` — the same numeric level as `"normal"`. There is no error, no warning, no `UNKNOWN` sentinel. A `DecisionRule` gated on `RiskAbove("critical")` will report `satisfied: False` for `risk_level="CRITICAL"` exactly as if the input had genuinely been low-risk.
+
+Confirmed directly: a rule wired `condition=RiskAbove("critical"), action_if_true="escalate", action_if_false="queue"` returns `action: "escalate"` for `risk_level="critical"` and silently `action: "queue"` — the opposite decision — for `risk_level="CRITICAL"`. `consistency_check()` reports `consistent: True` in both cases; nothing in the outcome distinguishes a genuine low-risk case from a typo'd critical one.
+
+**Why this is the default**: `risk_level` is a plain string on `RuntimeBinding`, not a validated enum — the primitive layer accepts any value a caller supplies, and `RiskAbove` was built to degrade gracefully (default to `1`/`"normal"`) rather than raise on unrecognized input, on the assumption that a missing/malformed risk signal should fail toward caution-as-normal rather than crash the traversal. That default-to-normal choice is defensible in isolation; it becomes dangerous specifically because it's silent and specifically because `ADV-02` recommends `RiskAbove` as *the* fix for risk-based routing without calling out that the string has to match exactly.
+
+**How to close the gap**: normalize `risk_level` before it reaches the engine — lowercase and validate against the known set (`{"low", "normal", "high", "critical"}`) at the point where your harness constructs `RuntimeBinding`, and reject or log anything that doesn't match rather than letting it fall through to `RiskAbove`'s silent default. Do this at the boundary, once, rather than trusting every caller to spell `risk_level` correctly forever.
+
+---
+
+*v1 — 2026-07-08 (ADV-01/02), v2 — 2026-07-08 (ADV-03..06), v3 — 2026-07-08 (ADV-07). All found by actually running scenarios through `dev_mcp` (`scope="core"`), not by inspection or guesswork. More advisories get added here the same way — dug up, not invented.*

{fpf_thinking_map-1.4.2 → fpf_thinking_map-1.4.3}/fpf_thinking_map.egg-info/PKG-INFO

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 Metadata-Version: 2.4
 Name: fpf-thinking-map
-Version: 1.4.2
+Version: 1.4.3
 Summary: Agentic thinking map — structured reasoning constraints for LLMs with TTL evidence decay, deterministic guards, and propositional logic glue. Compiled from FPF (First Principles Framework).
 Author-email: "prichindel.com" <igareosh@igareosh.com>
 License-Expression: MIT
@@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ Dynamic: license-file
 
 # prichindel.com Agentic Thinking Map
 
-**v1.4.2** — [FPF (First Principles Framework)](https://github.com/ailev/FPF), compiled into a small traversal map for LLM agents.
+**v1.4.3** — [FPF (First Principles Framework)](https://github.com/ailev/FPF), compiled into a small traversal map for LLM agents.
 
 A Python package that gives a model a bounded move board instead of a giant framework to digest at runtime. Instead of rereading a sprawling semantic corpus and improvising from it, the model gets a small JSON slice: what context it is in, what move is open, what evidence is missing, what is risky, and what outcome class applies.
 
@@ -234,6 +234,11 @@ The model's job shrinks from "figure out the entire epistemic state of your own
 - **Four more advisories** (`ADV-03`–`ADV-06`), found the same way as `ADV-01`/`ADV-02` — running scenarios through `dev_mcp`, not inspection. The one to actually read: **`ADV-03`** — `RuntimeBinding.active_context_id` is self-asserted input, never verified against having actually crossed a bridge; a caller can claim any context directly and get the identical `CONTINUE` a licensed `cross_bridge()` call would produce. `ADV-04` — contradiction detection between `DecisionRule`s is opt-in via `exclusive_with`, not inferred from opposite-looking action names. `ADV-05` — gate `DEGRADE` only distinguishes partial evidence when related facts are grouped into *one* `GateCheck`; split across separate checks, "one of three known" collapses to indistinguishable from "none known." `ADV-06` — `agency_level` (PASSIVE/REACTIVE/AUTONOMOUS/DELIBERATIVE) is descriptive metadata only, same shape as `risk_level` (`ADV-02`) — nothing stops a `PASSIVE` role from firing what a `DELIBERATIVE` role can.
 - `check_advisories_content` now asserts all six advisory IDs are present, not just the original two.
 
+## v1.4.3 changes
+
+- **`ADV-07`** — the sharpest advisory yet, called out at the top of `ADVISORIES.md` alongside `ADV-03`. `RiskAbove(threshold)` matches `risk_level` against a fixed table via plain dict lookup; anything not found — including a correctly-spelled value in the wrong case (`"CRITICAL"` vs. `"critical"`) — silently resolves to `"normal"`. Confirmed directly: a `RiskAbove("critical")` rule wired exactly as `ADV-02` recommends returns the *opposite* routed action for `"CRITICAL"` vs. `"critical"`, with no error, no warning, `consistency_check()` reporting `True` either way. Following the library's own documented fix for `ADV-02` does not protect you from this — normalize and validate `risk_level` at your harness boundary before it reaches the engine.
+- `check_advisories_content` now asserts all seven advisory IDs.
+
 ## Design principles
 
 - **Only add structure when it changes agentic behavior** — not for source fidelity alone
@@ -331,4 +336,4 @@ MIT. See [LICENSE](LICENSE).
 
 ---
 
-**prichindel.com** — v1.4.2 — 2026-07-08
+**prichindel.com** — v1.4.3 — 2026-07-08

{fpf_thinking_map-1.4.2 → fpf_thinking_map-1.4.3}/pyproject.toml

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 [project]
 name = "fpf-thinking-map"
-version = "1.4.2"
+version = "1.4.3"
 description = "Agentic thinking map — structured reasoning constraints for LLMs with TTL evidence decay, deterministic guards, and propositional logic glue. Compiled from FPF (First Principles Framework)."
 readme = "README.md"
 license = "MIT"