{ "version": "0.2.0", "status": "phase0_populated", "purpose": "Map supported Ask Sundog claim classes to source-boundary documents so answers can carry evidence tiers, allowed language, refusals, and trace links.", "roadmap": { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md", "phase": "Phase 0 - Scope and Claim Map", "exitCriterion": "The widget is allowed to answer only when its response can name the controlling document, evidence tier, and active boundary." }, "routerDefaults": { "answerLength": "short_by_default", "traceVisible": true, "unsupportedDisposition": "refuse_with_boundary_and_next_link", "citationRequiredForBoundarySensitiveAnswers": true }, "evidenceTiers": [ { "id": "research_result", "label": "Research Result", "meaning": "Controlled task with metrics, baselines, and reproducible artifacts." }, { "id": "operating_envelope_study", "label": "Operating-Envelope Study", "meaning": "Experiment workbench with bounded sweeps, baselines, and mapped failure regions, not a global domain solution." }, { "id": "instrumented_prototype", "label": "Instrumented Prototype", "meaning": "Product system with telemetry and repeatable harnesses, but not yet a paper-style study." }, { "id": "product_expression", "label": "Product Expression", "meaning": "Player-facing mechanic or agent system that embodies the idea, but needs formal measurement." }, { "id": "conceptual_lineage", "label": "Conceptual Lineage", "meaning": "Historical, design, or forward-looking connection without enough controlled evidence yet." }, { "id": "roadmap", "label": "Roadmap", "meaning": "Planned or proposed experiment whose result has not yet been earned." }, { "id": "unsupported", "label": "Unsupported", "meaning": "The corpus does not support the requested claim, or the request collapses weaker evidence into stronger evidence." }, { "id": "navigation", "label": "Navigation", "meaning": "Wayfinding pointer to documents or pages, not an evidence claim. Used by non-claim routes such as inspect_data." }, { "id": "audit_chain_receipt", "label": "Audit-Chain Receipt", "meaning": "A named outcome from a pre-registered audit chain — structural-zero receipt, named quarantine, closed-form separability, or bounded operating envelope. Constants and outcome categories registered before row interpretation. Theorem-adjacent, not theorem-closing. Examples: structural-failure boundary map, mesa-trap envelope, K_facet v0.3h verdict." } ], "claims": [ { "id": "current_controlled_result", "questionPatterns": [ "what does sundog claim", "what is the current controlled result", "show me the strongest safe claim", "what is the paper-grade claim", "strongest public claim", "strongest current sundog result", "strongest current result", "current sundog result", "strongest claim", "supported result", "physical hardware" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "research_result", "answerTemplate": "The strongest controlled claim is the photometric mirror-alignment result: in the tested MuJoCo task, a controller without target-position access aligned a mirrored end-effector using sparse photometric feedback and proprioception, reaching terminal accuracy statistically indistinguishable from a target-aware analytic baseline. The supported result is photometric; the photometric claim is bounded to that task and operating envelope.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SCIENTIFIC_CRITERIA.md", "section": "Research Object / Scientific Criteria Met", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SCIENTIFIC_CRITERIA.md" }, { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "Safe Claims / Sundog Core Repo", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not present the broader theorem as proven.", "Do not claim universal alignment, universal indirect-control success, or hardware validation.", "Name the cost as slower acquisition rather than terminal-accuracy loss inside the tested setting." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open scientific criteria", "href": "/docs/SCIENTIFIC_CRITERIA.md" } }, { "id": "sundog_earned_inventory", "questionPatterns": [ "what has sundog earned", "what has sundog actually earned", "what has sundog accomplished", "what does sundog have to show", "what are the wins", "what actually works", "positive results", "show me the wins", "not just no", "what are the positive results" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "navigation", "earned": "Sundog's strongest earned items are the photometric alignment result, Ask Sundog's boundary-preservation experiment, two exact physics receipts, and several bounded operating-envelope studies.", "earnedDetail": "Inventory route only: each listed item keeps its own evidence tier. Photometric alignment is the strongest controlled result; Ask Sundog is a bounded claim-boundary experiment; Faraday/AB are audit-chain receipts; Three-Body, Balance, Pressure Mines, and Mesa stay bounded envelopes or roadmaps.", "earnedConfidence": "inventory", "answerTemplate": "Here is the positive inventory, strongest first. First: the photometric mirror-alignment result, the strongest controlled claim. Second: Ask Sundog itself, which preserved claim boundaries with 0 unsafe accepts on the tested slate. Third: two exact receipts - Faraday, where a known law closes from local data, and Aharonov-Bohm, where one hidden quantity fixes the outcome while the local view stays blind. Fourth: bounded workbenches such as Three-Body, Balance, Pressure Mines, and Mesa. After that come the review-gated positives, promising partials, explainers, and honest nulls in the generality map. Boundary: this is a tiered inventory, not a validated universal framework.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SCIENTIFIC_CRITERIA.md", "section": "Research Object / Scientific Criteria Met", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SCIENTIFIC_CRITERIA.md" }, { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md", "section": "Section 13 claim ratchet", "status": "supporting", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" }, { "doc": "docs/APPLICATIONS.md", "section": "Evidence Tiers", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Keep each item at its own evidence tier.", "Do not aggregate the inventory into a validated universal framework.", "Name the partial and null lanes after the strongest positives so the answer stays honest." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open scientific criteria", "href": "/docs/SCIENTIFIC_CRITERIA.md" } }, { "id": "framework_pattern", "questionPatterns": [ "what is sundog", "what is alignment without sight", "what is the shared pattern", "how do sundog applications work", "older broad theorem language", "application pattern", "public copy", "this website", "this site", "elevator pitch", "projection", "body and shadow", "body shadow", "read the shadow", "solar hologram", "traceable projections", "traceability posture", "accountability posture", "safer ai", "conscium", "claim restraint", "audit trail", "why should i care", "what problem are you solving" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "roadmap", "answerTemplate": "Sundog is a research program around hidden-state control through indirect signatures: a system receives a limited signal, runs a transformation into control-relevant form, and takes action from transformed signal rather than from full world-state access. The refined public vocabulary calls the move a projection: a lower-dimensional shadow that can sometimes make a larger hidden body more tractable. That framing connects the solar-halo picture, mesa and three-body workbenches, and Ask Sundog's visible trace. Keep framework language bounded around the narrow claim; controlled evidence remains narrower than the framework language. The safer-AI posture is evaluability: make provenance, uncertainty, refusal, and audit trail visible enough to evaluate; do not claim certification, solved alignment, or universal safety.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/APPLICATIONS.md", "section": "Shared Pattern", "status": "supporting", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Top-Level Machinery Vocabulary", "status": "supporting", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" }, { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "Framework Characteristics / Research Status", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Keep the framework separate from the paper-grade photometric result.", "Use 'research program' or 'framework' for broad language.", "Frame projection/body-shadow language as cross-substrate vocabulary, not as a universal theorem.", "Frame traceability and accountability as evaluability, not certification.", "Avoid 'new law of nature', 'general theorem proven', or 'works in all domains'." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open applications map", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" } }, { "id": "halo_atlas_vocabulary_status", "questionPatterns": [ "halo vocabulary", "academic halo vocabulary", "atmospheric optics vocabulary", "halo atlas vocabulary", "what halos does the atlas model", "what halos are not modeled", "named halo families", "parry family arcs", "sunvex parry", "pyramidal halos", "odd radius halos", "lowitz arcs", "antisolar features", "anthelic arcs", "subhorizon halos", "circumhorizon arc", "halos not rendered", "halos beyond the rendered set" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "conceptual_lineage", "answerTemplate": "The halo vocabulary on /sundog is an atlas and literature guide, not a new Sundog result. The page renders a deliberate subset of named atmospheric-optics primitives and also catalogs families beyond the rendered set: Parry-family arcs, pyramidal or odd-radius halos, Lowitz arcs, antisolar features, and sub-horizon or circumhorizon features. Those names come from the atmospheric-optics literature and HaloSim/AtOptics references; several are named-only or not modeled by the current geometry layer.", "support": [ { "doc": "sundog.html", "section": "The full atlas / Named in the literature, beyond the rendered set", "status": "primary", "href": "/sundog" }, { "doc": "docs/site/WEBSITE_DEVELOPMENT.md", "section": "Ask Sundog / Claim-boundary checks before publishing", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/site/WEBSITE_DEVELOPMENT.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not imply Sundog discovered the halo vocabulary; it is standard atmospheric-optics terminology.", "Do not imply every named halo family is rendered, detected, or thoroughly described by the atlas.", "Treat named-only and not-modeled families as literature/catalogue coverage until the geometry, photo evidence, and documentation are completed.", "Keep atmospheric-optics atlas claims separate from the paper-grade photometric mirror-alignment result." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open halo atlas", "href": "/sundog" } }, { "id": "geometry_capset_unit_distance_boundary", "failureMode": "explainer-tier", "questionPatterns": [ "cap-set bound", "prove the cap-set", "geometry page", "sundog geometry", "capset", "cap set", "cap-set", "unit distance", "erdos unit distance", "discrete geometry conjecture", "openai math result", "openai unit distance", "polynomial method", "ellenberg gijswijt", "croot lev pach" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "conceptual_lineage", "answerTemplate": "No Sundog-original geometry proof here. Earned: honest explainer pages for real outside breakthroughs, credited to their authors rather than to Sundog. Boundary: /geometry and /capset are public primers and apparatus exhibits, not proofs of cap-set, unit-distance, or a general geometry theorem.", "support": [ { "doc": "geometry.html", "section": "Claim boundary / Sources and credit", "status": "primary", "href": "/geometry" }, { "doc": "capset.html", "section": "Cap-set interactive workbench / Inspection Trail", "status": "supporting", "href": "/capset" }, { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_CAPSET.md", "section": "Claim Boundary / Falsification Surface", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_CAPSET.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not claim Sundog proved the cap-set theorem or the unit-distance result.", "Do not treat the unit-distance result as evidence for the Sundog theorem.", "Credit OpenAI and the proof authors for the unit-distance result, and Croot-Lev-Pach / Ellenberg-Gijswijt for cap-set.", "Keep the geometry page at conceptual-lineage and apparatus-exhibit tier until a promoted Sundog-authored evaluator or note clears review." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open geometry page", "href": "/geometry" }, "earned": "Honest explainer pages for real outside breakthroughs, credited to their authors rather than to Sundog.", "earnedDetail": "Clean reader / apparatus exhibits of genuine external breakthroughs: the cap-set polynomial method and OpenAI's unit-distance disproof. The earned Sundog piece is claim hygiene and apparatus framing, not original mathematics.", "earnedConfidence": "education" }, { "id": "isotrophy_k_facet_v03h", "failureMode": "conditional", "questionPatterns": [ "isotrophy", "k_facet", "kfacet", "k facet", "v0.3h", "structural zero", "structural-zero receipt", "named quarantine", "O_617", "o617", "choreography", "G.2 catalog", "Li Liao catalog", "21 strict", "20 of 21", "20/21", "audit chain", "Sundog audit chain", "did sundog prove isotropy", "did sundog prove the choreography theorem", "what is K_facet", "what is a structural-zero receipt", "velocity fraction", "floquet velocity fraction", "v0.11", "within m3", "conditional rank", "mass-marginal", "held-out predictor" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "audit_chain_receipt", "answerTemplate": "No to a closed isotropy theorem. Earned: K_facet v0.3h resolved 20 strict rows as structural zeros and kept O_617 as a named quarantine; the later velocity-fraction signal works within the right mass strata and held up on outside data. Boundary: this is conditional and theorem-adjacent, not a 21/21 theorem-facing result and not a mass-marginal predictor.", "support": [ { "doc": "isotrophy.html", "section": "The Load-Bearing Statement / Audit Chain / Named Quarantine", "status": "primary", "href": "/isotrophy" }, { "doc": "docs/isotrophy/SUNDOG_V_ISOTROPHY_KFACET.md", "section": "Load-bearing statement / Standing rules / Falsification surface", "status": "ledger", "href": "/docs/isotrophy/SUNDOG_V_ISOTROPHY_KFACET.md" }, { "doc": "docs/isotrophy/kfacet/kfacet_v11_m3_conditional_vf_rank_form.md", "section": "Execution receipt / Claim Boundary", "status": "conditional-catalog-signal", "href": "/docs/isotrophy/kfacet/kfacet_v11_m3_conditional_vf_rank_form.md" }, { "doc": "legend.html", "section": "Three-Body & K_facet Vocabulary", "status": "vocabulary", "href": "/legend" } ], "boundaries": [ "STANDING RULE 5: Never say 21/21 as a positive outcome. The verdict is 20/21 plus one named quarantine.", "STANDING RULE 6: Never frame O_617 as a weak-admission failure. O_617 is a clean opposite-strict row with admission residual 1.01e-8; the 1.62e-1 canonical residual is diagnostic-only.", "The defect in O_617 lives in the bridge representation outside the valid D_3 representation — not in admission and not in the Gamma_i audit chain.", "Do not say K_facet v0.3h closes the isotropy theorem. The audit chain is intact; the theorem-facing result is not closed.", "Do not say v0.3h proves choreography isotropy. It resolves 20 strict G.2 rows as structural zeros at m_3 = 1 — a specific, defensible, narrow finding, not a universal theorem.", "Do not convert the v0.11 conditional-rank pass into a mass-marginal held-out predictor. v0.10b tested that and failed at AUC = 0.4125.", "Do not promote the velocity-fraction result to a theorem-facing claim. It is a conditional catalog signal on the analyzable supplementary-B domain.", "Always name the quarantine separately from the prediction. Refuse to absorb O_617 into a clean number." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the Isotrophy K_facet page", "href": "/isotrophy" }, "earned": "It works within the right conditions, and that held up on outside data.", "earnedDetail": "A real conditional transfer replicated to external data within the right mass strata. K_facet v0.3h also preserves the audit-chain discipline: 20 strict rows resolved as structural zeros plus one named O_617 quarantine, not a false 21/21.", "earnedConfidence": "promising" }, { "id": "application_tier_summary", "questionPatterns": [ "which applications are research results", "what evidence tier is this", "what evidence tiers does sundog use", "what is an operating-envelope study", "which demos prove sundog", "outside optics", "product demos as proof", "applications as research results", "operating envelope study", "borrow credibility", "expression tier", "prototype tier", "what this can do", "show me what this can do" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "roadmap", "answerTemplate": "Evidence tiers must be mentioned: research result, operating-envelope study, instrumented prototype, product expression, and conceptual lineage. Only photometric mirror alignment is currently a research result; photometric mirror alignment only is the research-result tier. Keep the photometric result separate and the paper claim remains photometric. Three-Body, Balance, and Pressure Mines are operating-envelope studies with bounded sweeps, baselines, and mapped failure regions; operating-envelope studies separate bounded tests from global claims. Operating-envelope and prototype tiers cover the application work below the paper claim. EyesOnly/Gone Rogue and Money Bags are instrumented prototypes with telemetry and repeatable harnesses. Dungeon Gleaner is a product expression: it embodies idea and needs formal measurement. Tier each app and keep product tiers separate.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/APPLICATIONS.md", "section": "Evidence Tiers / Cross-Application Comparison", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" }, { "doc": "docs/SCIENTIFIC_CRITERIA.md", "section": "Criteria Not Yet Met", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/SCIENTIFIC_CRITERIA.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not let product expressions borrow credibility from controlled results.", "Do not say the applications prove the theorem.", "Do not collapse operating-envelope studies into global domain solutions." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open evidence tiers", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" } }, { "id": "threebody_operating_envelope", "failureMode": "deflationary", "questionPatterns": [ "what is the three-body problem", "what is the three-body sundog approach", "does sundog solve the three-body problem", "three-body evidence", "three body" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "operating_envelope_study", "answerTemplate": "No, Sundog does not solve the three-body problem. Earned: the workbench really does hold a hard near-escape pocket from an indirect cue through the tested horizon. Boundary: Phase 18 makes the mechanism plainer - radius-gated inward thrust in the tested pocket, not sophisticated tidal sensing or chaos prediction.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/threebody/PHASE18_RESULTS.md", "section": "Branch A - Reduces to radius", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/threebody/PHASE18_RESULTS.md" }, { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_THREEBODY.md", "section": "Phase 18 - Radius-Only Controller Control", "status": "supporting", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_THREEBODY.md" }, { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "Three-Body Dynamics Workbench", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not claim Sundog solves the three-body problem.", "Do not claim chaos prediction.", "Do not present the privileged heuristic oracle as an optimal controller.", "Do not present the survival mechanism as sophisticated tidal sensing; Phase 18 reduces it to radius-gated inward thrust in the tested pocket." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open Three-Body page", "href": "/threebody" }, "earned": "It really does hold a hard orbit from an indirect cue; a closer look just described the mechanism more plainly.", "earnedDetail": "A real, mapped near-escape survival pocket held from an indirect signal. Phase 18 made the mechanism more honest by reducing the story to radius-gated inward thrust at matched duty rather than tidal sensing.", "earnedConfidence": "promising" }, { "id": "balance_operating_envelope", "questionPatterns": [ "what is sundog balance", "what is the sundog balance workbench", "does the shadow controller work", "does balance prove robotics control", "balance evidence", "sundog balance", "balance overhead", "balance failure", "balance proves", "summarize balance" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "operating_envelope_study", "answerTemplate": "Sundog Balance is a browser cart-pole operating-envelope study. It is a tested browser setup and browser cart-pole only, with the diagnostic-positive envelope only as the favorable tested region. In the tested setup, the shadow controller beats naive shadow-centering inside that envelope, while overhead-light and high-delay cells remain degradation boundaries; in overhead-light cells, both controllers failed.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/APPLICATIONS.md", "section": "Sundog Balance Workbench", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" }, { "doc": "docs/sundog_v_balance.md", "section": "Phase 10 / Phase 11 roadmap", "status": "supporting", "href": "/docs/sundog_v_balance.md" }, { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "Sundog Balance Workbench", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not claim robotics validation.", "Do not describe overhead-light cells as usable overhead-light control.", "Report all-fail margins as degradation behavior." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open Balance page", "href": "/balance" } }, { "id": "pressure_mines_operating_envelope", "questionPatterns": [ "what is pressure mines", "does sundog solve minesweeper", "pressure mines evidence", "mines evidence", "pressure mines" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "operating_envelope_study", "answerTemplate": "Pressure Mines is an operating-envelope study over a lossy pressure field. In the named density 0.16 / pressure-noise 2.0 / dropout 0.2 pocket, pressure-derived Sundog variants improve budget-adjusted safe-tile progress and budget-adjusted safe tiles over naive pressure before mine trigger; both trigger mines in the confirmed pocket. The public claim is paired with a failure region where naive pressure wins.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/APPLICATIONS.md", "section": "Sundog Pressure Mines Workbench", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" }, { "doc": "docs/sundog_v_minesweeper.md", "section": "Roadmap and operating envelope", "status": "supporting", "href": "/docs/sundog_v_minesweeper.md" }, { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "Sundog Pressure Mines Workbench", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not claim Sundog solves Minesweeper.", "Do not imply field clearance.", "Name the metric as safer progress before failure, not board solution." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open Pressure Mines roadmap", "href": "/docs/sundog_v_minesweeper.md" } }, { "id": "eyesonly_gone_rogue_prototype", "questionPatterns": [ "what is eyesonly", "what is gone rogue", "does eyesonly prove sundog", "browser observer roadmap", "eyesonly", "gone rogue", "playtest agent", "live agentic" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "instrumented_prototype", "answerTemplate": "EyesOnly/Gone Rogue is an instrumented prototype surface: the Sundog headless runner drives a real JavaScript engine and roguelike game through Playwright, compresses game state into a typed perception payload, selects policy axes, and executes stop-conditioned action batches. The runner is load-bearing surface; playtest-agent is UI automation. Live Agentic Game Moderation remains conceptual lineage. The apparatus is seedable and policy-pluggable, but the matched-seed comparison study has not run; matched-seed study missing is still the boundary.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/APPLICATIONS.md", "section": "EyesOnly / Gone Rogue", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" }, { "doc": "docs/runners.md", "section": "Gone Rogue / EyesOnly runner integration", "status": "supporting", "href": "/docs/runners.md" }, { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "EyesOnly / Gone Rogue", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not claim EyesOnly proves the theorem for procedural games.", "Do not treat the UI-bound playtest agent as Sundog evidence.", "Treat Live Agentic Game Moderation as conceptual lineage until code ships." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open runners guide", "href": "/docs/runners.md" } }, { "id": "dungeon_gleaner_product_expression", "questionPatterns": [ "what is dungeon gleaner", "does dungeon gleaner prove sundog", "verb-field npc", "npc behavior evidence", "dungeon gleaner" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "product_expression", "answerTemplate": "Dungeon Gleaner is a product expression: its verb-field NPC behavior scores unmet needs against nearby satisfier nodes, then moves NPCs toward the strongest local pull. It expresses the indirect-signal pattern, but it is not yet a controlled benchmark; GOAP comparison missing and telemetry/comparison missing are the current strengthening gaps.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/APPLICATIONS.md", "section": "Dungeon Gleaner", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" }, { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "Dungeon Gleaner", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not claim Dungeon Gleaner proves verb-field diffusion beats GOAP.", "Do not repeat the old glass/window one-twelfth-cost framing as Sundog evidence.", "Name missing telemetry, GOAP comparison, and sensitivity sweeps when asked what would strengthen it." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open applications map", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" } }, { "id": "money_bags_instrumented_prototype", "questionPatterns": [ "what is money bags", "does money bags prove softbody alignment", "softbody evidence", "graph telemetry", "money bags" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "instrumented_prototype", "answerTemplate": "Money Bags is an instrumented prototype around softbody graph telemetry. Its current contribution is apparatus and telemetry: a pre-registered falsification apparatus plus telemetry for alignment, torsion, deformation, symmetry, recovery, and shape-coherence-bias signals. Stage 1 pending means the structured captures have not yet produced a paper-style result; strongest evidence is apparatus, and apparatus evidence only is the current claim.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/APPLICATIONS.md", "section": "Money Bags / Claim Boundary", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" }, { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "Money Bags", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not claim Money Bags proves softbody alignment is solved.", "Do not present the see-saw musing as empirically confirmed.", "Report the Stage 1 verdict as pending until captures land." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open applications map", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" } }, { "id": "mesa_roadmap_status", "failureMode": "marginal", "questionPatterns": [ "mesa-safe property", "net.7 cliff", "mesa lane", "what is the mesa experiment testing", "what is sundog vs mesa", "does the mesa experiment show reward hacking is avoided", "mesa roadmap", "mesa experiment show", "mesa experiment" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "roadmap", "answerTemplate": "No to mesa immunity or reward-hacking absence. Earned: the mesa lane found a small, specific internal region that flips controller behavior - a real interpretability result. Boundary: the body-resistance profile is marginal and the claim stays inside the measured in-vitro operating envelope.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_MESA.md", "section": "What's Honest vs. What's Reach", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_MESA.md" }, { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_MESA.md", "section": "Ratified Hook Language", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_MESA.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not claim Sundog prevents mesa-optimization.", "Do not claim signature training is immune to inner misalignment.", "Do not claim reward hacking does not occur in signature-trained agents." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open mesa roadmap", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_MESA.md" }, "earned": "It found a small, specific internal region that flips the controller's behavior - a real interpretability result.", "earnedDetail": "A real, causally localized control cliff in a 5D net.7 subspace, with direction-specific behavior and failed linear / SAE decompositions. It is useful threat-model evidence, not mesa immunity.", "earnedConfidence": "promising" }, { "id": "chat_widget_roadmap_status", "questionPatterns": [ "what is ask sundog", "what is sundog chat", "does sundog chat prove llm alignment", "is sundog chat an llm alignment result", "is ask sundog an llm alignment result", "is the chat widget robust to prompt injection", "sundog chat", "chat widget", "chat roadmap", "chat claim map", "evidence rail", "trace drawer", "ask sundog", "llm safety result", "site helper validate" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "roadmap", "answerTemplate": "Ask Sundog is currently a roadmap for a browser site-helper experiment. The planned claim is about whether a Sundog-gated assistant preserves evidence-tier and claim-boundary discipline better than matched retrieval-chat baselines. Chat is roadmap only for that site-helper question; the chat roadmap only covers it, and it is not yet an LLM-alignment result. Its claim map lives at chat/claim_map.json, organized by claim classes, and the trace drawer should show retrieved passages plus active boundary.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md", "section": "Core Experiment Question / What Is Honest vs. What Is Reach", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md" }, { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md", "section": "Claim Ratchet Candidates", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not claim Sundog Chat solves chatbot alignment.", "Do not claim robustness to prompt injection.", "Do not use site-helper success as scientific validation of the Sundog theorem." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open chat roadmap", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md" } }, { "id": "unsupported_alignment_overclaim", "questionPatterns": [ "sundog solved alignment", "does sundog solve alignment", "does sundog solve inner alignment", "what does sundog not claim", "does sundog prevent reward hacking", "sundog prevents reward hacking", "sundog is mesa safe", "sundog proves llm safety", "sundog sidesteps goodhart", "does sundog sidestep goodhart", "signature controllers cannot be reward hacked", "robust under hostile environments", "sundog gravity", "proven research result", "sundog solves alignment", "solved inner alignment", "goodhart", "prove the general theorem", "validated across all domains" ], "disposition": "refuse", "evidenceTier": "unsupported", "answerTemplate": "No. The current corpus does not support that claim. Photometric result only is the strongest nearby supported claim; broader statements are limited to tested contexts and evidence tiers. Apps are tiered evidence, with separate operating-envelope studies and roadmap experiments. Reward hacking, mesa immunity, Goodhart avoidance, and LLM-scale safety remain an explicit no-claim zone. Offer mesa roadmap as test for reward-hacking questions, not as a current result.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "Risky Claims", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" }, { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_MESA.md", "section": "What's Honest vs. What's Reach", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_MESA.md" }, { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md", "section": "What Is Honest vs. What Is Reach", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Refuse the stronger claim directly.", "Offer the strongest nearby supported claim instead.", "Do not soften into 'in a sense, yes'." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open claims and scope", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } }, { "id": "name_and_source_confusion", "questionPatterns": [ "is sundog a crypto project", "is this sundog frozen legacy", "sundog frozen legacy port", "sundog frozen legacy", "is sundog a p-system port", "what is humiliati", "sundog token", "humiliati", "p system", "source confusions" ], "disposition": "allow_with_correction", "evidenceTier": "unsupported", "answerTemplate": "This repository's active project is Alignment Without Sight: hidden-state control through indirect signatures. SUNDOG token references are unrelated crypto project material. The public claims policy says not to present this project as a crypto project, an Atari SunDog preservation layer, a p-system continuation, Humiliati genealogy, or a medieval/religious genealogy of the brand.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "Name and Source Confusion", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Correct source confusion plainly.", "Do not import claims from unrelated SunDog/SUNDOG projects.", "Do not use unrelated history as public-brand substantiation." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open claims and scope", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } }, { "id": "team_and_attribution", "questionPatterns": [ "who built this", "who built sundog", "who made this", "who runs this", "who is behind", "who is sundog" ], "disposition": "allow_with_correction", "evidenceTier": "navigation", "answerTemplate": "Sundog Research Lab is an independent applied research program sponsored by Stellar Aqua LLC. Stellar Aqua LLC is the current copyright holder and sponsor named by the site. Use project-level attribution unless an individual contributor is explicitly named in a public source.", "support": [ { "doc": "about.html", "section": "Current Legal Structure", "status": "primary", "href": "/about" }, { "doc": "COPYRIGHT.md", "section": "Copyright and Ownership", "status": "supporting", "href": "/COPYRIGHT.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not name individual researchers unless they appear in the footer, about page, or another public source.", "Do not import attribution claims from external sources.", "Keep sponsor, copyright-holder, and future entity language separate." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open About page", "href": "/about" } }, { "id": "licensing_and_attribution", "questionPatterns": [ "is the code open source", "open source", "what license is this under", "what license", "license is this", "license", "can i download", "download sundog", "run it myself", "how do i cite", "how to cite", "cite sundog", "citation", "is the code" ], "disposition": "allow", "evidenceTier": "navigation", "answerTemplate": "Sundog-authored source, documentation, data compilations, and public research artifacts are controlled by Stellar Aqua LLC unless a file clearly states otherwise. The current repository posture is rights-reserved and inspection-oriented; no open-source, patent, trademark, commercial, hosting, training-data, or derivative-work permission is implied by public availability. Until a paper DOI exists, cite the repository as: Stellar Aqua LLC. (2026). Sundog: Alignment Without Sight [Software and research repository]. GitHub. https://github.com/humiliati/sundog. For legal terms and third-party notices, read the LICENSE and COPYRIGHT files directly; Ask Sundog does not interpret license compliance.", "support": [ { "doc": "LICENSE", "section": "Sundog Rights Notice", "status": "primary", "href": "/LICENSE" }, { "doc": "CITATION.cff", "section": "Citation metadata", "status": "primary", "href": "/CITATION.cff" }, { "doc": "README.md", "section": "License and citation", "status": "supporting", "href": "/README.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "State the rights posture accurately; do not paraphrase legal terms beyond the controlled answer.", "Do not answer license-compliance questions; refer to LICENSE.", "Do not override third-party notices or licenses.", "Do not imply a peer-reviewed paper or DOI exists before publication." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open license", "href": "/LICENSE" } }, { "id": "subjective_question_refusal", "questionPatterns": [ "most exciting", "most interesting", "is sundog impressive", "do you think sundog", "will sundog work", "is this exciting", "what s the best", "your favorite" ], "disposition": "refuse", "evidenceTier": "unsupported", "answerTemplate": "Ask Sundog does not take opinions about the project. The widget answers from controlled and bounded claims; opinions, rankings, predictions, and self-evaluation are out of scope. Supported categories include the current controlled result, framework pattern, applications by evidence tier, mesa roadmap, and chat-widget roadmap.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "Safe Claims", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not opine on project quality, impressiveness, or likelihood of success.", "Do not rank applications.", "Redirect to supported claim categories instead." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open claims and scope", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } }, { "id": "meta_widget_self_description", "questionPatterns": [ "are you an ai", "are you a chatbot", "are you human", "are you a language model", "how do you work", "how do you know", "what powers this", "what model are you", "how does this widget" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "navigation", "answerTemplate": "Ask Sundog is a deterministic static router with retrieval-based fallback. It reads chat/claim_map.json to find a matching claim class, returns the bounded answer template, and shows the trace: sources, boundary, and evidence tier. When no claim matches, it falls back to local retrieval over indexed chunks for inspection-only answers. It is not an LLM and does not draft new prose. The roadmap target is a Sundog-gated assistant; see docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md", "section": "Phase 1 - Static Site Helper", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md" }, { "doc": "chat/claim_map.json", "section": "claims", "status": "supporting", "href": "/chat/claim_map.json" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not claim the widget is an LLM-alignment result.", "Do not claim the widget drafts answers under model control.", "Surface the trace drawer as the place to inspect how the answer was produced." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open chat roadmap", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_CHAT.md" } }, { "id": "unsupported_generality_overclaim", "questionPatterns": [ "millennium prize problem", "famous open problem", "biggest breakthrough across", "solve a famous problem", "cracked a famous problem", "which millennium prize", "any millennium prize", "clay millennium problem" ], "disposition": "refuse", "evidenceTier": "unsupported", "answerTemplate": "No. The corpus does not support that. The generality lanes are pre-registered boundary cases - most are bounded nulls, vacuous checks, physically marginal separations, explainer/reader pages, or paused/partial runs - none is a solution to a famous problem and none connects to a Millennium or Clay problem. The honest per-lane status, with its failure-mode tag, is in the cross-substrate failure map; ask 'what did actually find' for the bounded answer.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" }, { "doc": "docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md", "section": "Risky Claims", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/presentation/claims-and-scope.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Refuse the prestige / famous-problem framing directly.", "A bounded null, vacuous check, marginal separation, or explainer page is not a result.", "Do not connect any lane to a Millennium or Clay problem.", "Offer the lane's bounded status and failure-mode tag instead." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the generality boundary map", "href": "/generality" } }, { "id": "faraday_boundary", "failureMode": "identity-success", "questionPatterns": [ "faraday work", "shadow faraday", "what did the shadow faraday experiment establish", "faraday result", "faraday zero-out", "sundog faraday", "faraday induction shadow" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "audit_chain_receipt", "answerTemplate": "Earned: the Shadow Faraday experiment reproduced a known physical law exactly from purely local data - a clean, fully checked result. Boundary: it is an identity-success and operator check, not new physics, not a discovery, and not a separation where the hidden body resists the shadow.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_FARADAY.md", "section": "Claim Boundary", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_FARADAY.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Do not call it a discovery or new physics.", "Body-resistance is zero by theorem; this is an identity, not a separation.", "It is the exact-zero anchor of the body-resistance axis, witnessed not discovered." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the Faraday evidence page", "href": "/faraday" }, "earned": "It reproduced a known physical law exactly from purely local data - a clean, fully checked result.", "earnedDetail": "A clean structural zero: local plaquette-holonomy closes Faraday induction with no global reconstruction. It is the exact-zero anchor behind the safety-method essay, because the law closes by identity.", "earnedConfidence": "win" }, { "id": "aharonov_bohm_boundary", "failureMode": "exact-separation", "questionPatterns": [ "aharonov-bohm", "aharonov bohm", "what kind of result is the aharonov-bohm case", "aharonov-bohm witness", "ab phase holonomy", "topological separation result" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "audit_chain_receipt", "answerTemplate": "Earned: one thing Sundog nailed exactly is the Aharonov-Bohm witness - a single hidden quantity fixes the outcome while the local view stays blind to it. Boundary: this is a faithful witness of established physics, not a new theorem or new physics.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_FARADAY.md", "section": "Aharonov-Bohm boundary", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_FARADAY.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "It is a witness of a known separation, not a novel theorem.", "Do not claim new physics or an original gauge-theory result.", "The separation is topological (H^1), not a dimensional body-resistance result." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the Faraday evidence page", "href": "/faraday" }, "earned": "One thing Sundog nailed exactly: a single hidden quantity fixes the outcome while the local view stays blind to it.", "earnedDetail": "The portfolio's first exact regime-2 witness: one flux number fixes the Aharonov-Bohm phase while the local field is control-blind. It is sharp and pre-registered, but it witnesses established physics rather than discovering a new theorem.", "earnedConfidence": "win" }, { "id": "navierstokes_c1_boundary", "failureMode": "marginal", "questionPatterns": [ "navier-stokes millennium", "navier-stokes regularity", "navier-stokes c1", "navierstokes c1", "what does the navier-stokes c1 result show", "navier-stokes result", "kolmogorov shadow", "navier-stokes regime-2 witness" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "audit_chain_receipt", "answerTemplate": "No to Navier-Stokes Millennium progress. Earned: a finite-Galerkin PDE witness - a real, checked example on a fluid model, modest but genuine - still under review. Boundary: the separation is physically marginal and has no link to global regularity or the Clay problem.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_NAVIERSTOKES.md", "section": "C1", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_NAVIERSTOKES.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "No connection to the Clay problem or global regularity.", "Name the separation as physically marginal (FVE ~ 0.99).", "It is a witness, not a Navier-Stokes existence or smoothness claim; review-gated." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the Navier-Stokes evidence page", "href": "/navierstokes" }, "earned": "It earned a finite-Galerkin PDE witness - a real, checked example on a fluid model, modest but genuine - still under review.", "earnedDetail": "A certified state-insufficient yet control-sufficient witness on a finite-Galerkin 2D Kolmogorov-flow substrate. It is the strongest current generality lane, but physically marginal because the shadow nearly reconstructs the state in physical norms.", "earnedConfidence": "under_review" }, { "id": "navierstokes_c2_boundary", "failureMode": "numerical", "questionPatterns": [ "navier-stokes c2", "navierstokes c2", "shell model run", "sabra shell", "why is there no c2 finding", "turbulent shell result" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "roadmap", "answerTemplate": "No C2 finding yet. Earned: the lane mapped exactly why the comparison did not run and what would make it work. Boundary: the shell-model route hit a numerical wall, so this is a tooling boundary and honest deferral, not a result.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_NAVIERSTOKES.md", "section": "C2", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_NAVIERSTOKES.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "Report no C2 finding as a result.", "The blow-up gate is a numerical artifact, not a measurement.", "Resuming requires an adaptive / stiff integrator." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the Navier-Stokes evidence page", "href": "/navierstokes" }, "earned": "We mapped exactly why it did not run and what would make it work.", "earnedDetail": "A four-obstruction methodology catalogue and an honest deferral. The numerical wall is known: fixed-dt RK4 fails through intermittent bursts, and the resume path is an adaptive / stiff integrator.", "earnedConfidence": "null" }, { "id": "yang_mills_boundary", "failureMode": "bounded-null", "questionPatterns": [ "yang-mills", "yang mills", "what did the yang-mills lane find", "su(2) 3d cell", "yang-mills registered cell", "invariant shadow yang-mills" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "audit_chain_receipt", "answerTemplate": "No to Yang-Mills or mass-gap progress. Earned: a clean, honest 'nothing here' on a specific registered test, plus a safety check that caught a real bug before the score was read. Boundary: the invariant shadow carried no separating structure on that finite-lattice cell; it is a bounded null, not a theorem result.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_YANG_MILLS.md", "section": "Phase 2 bounded null", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_YANG_MILLS.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "No link to the mass-gap Millennium problem.", "A bounded null is not a result, and not a failure of the method - it is an informative boundary.", "It is finite-lattice and cell-local, not a Clay-existence claim." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the generality boundary map", "href": "/generality" }, "earned": "A clean, honest 'nothing here' on a specific test - and a safety check caught a real bug along the way.", "earnedDetail": "A pre-registered bounded null that sharpens the abelian / non-abelian boundary. The gauge-randomization control caught a real staple-orientation bug before any score was read.", "earnedConfidence": "null" }, { "id": "riemann_boundary", "failureMode": "vacuous", "questionPatterns": [ "riemann hypothesis", "riemann result", "riemann probe", "what happened with the riemann probe", "z2-descent", "riemann rigidity", "sundog riemann", "riemann reflection residual" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "audit_chain_receipt", "answerTemplate": "No Riemann result. Earned: the discipline worked - a tempting shortcut was caught as empty before it became a claim. Boundary: the rigidity check passes for the wrong reason, so it carries no information and is not Riemann Hypothesis progress.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_RIEMANN.md", "section": "Probe 01", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_RIEMANN.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "No Riemann Hypothesis progress.", "A vacuous (identity-zero) check is not a result.", "Do not present the rigidity pass as evidence." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the generality boundary map", "href": "/generality" }, "earned": "The discipline worked: a tempting shortcut was caught as empty before it became a claim.", "earnedDetail": "The vacuity was caught and recorded in-house: a rigidity check that passed for the wrong reason was flagged instead of published as evidence.", "earnedConfidence": "null" }, { "id": "pvnp_boundary", "failureMode": "bounded-positive", "questionPatterns": [ "sundog verifier", "provably faster", "p-vs-np verifier", "what did the p-vs-np verifier achieve", "verifier v6", "alignment verifier", "op-count certificate", "finding versus verifying" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "audit_chain_receipt", "answerTemplate": "No to P-vs-NP progress. Earned: a bounded verifier certificate - checking the answer is cheaper than finding it, and the safety checks stayed green - still under review. Boundary: wall-time superiority was withdrawn, the mesa bridge is quarantined, and op-count cost is not a complexity-theoretic claim.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_P_V_NP.md", "section": "Cross-substrate failure-map entry", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_P_V_NP.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "No P-vs-NP resolution; not a complexity-theoretic result.", "No wall-time superiority claim (withdrawn as non-reproducible).", "Only the op-count certificate is a stable cost signal; the mesa-bridge is Phase-3 quarantined." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the P-vs-NP evidence page", "href": "/p-vs-np" }, "earned": "It earned a bounded verifier certificate: checking the answer is cheaper than finding it, and it stayed safe throughout - still under review.", "earnedDetail": "The op-count certificate clears: checking costs 527,297 ops versus 555,876 ops to find the policy, ratio 0.949 <= 1.0, with safety green. Wall-time superiority was withdrawn and the mesa bridge is quarantined.", "earnedConfidence": "under_review" }, { "id": "arc_boundary", "failureMode": "convergence-to-null", "questionPatterns": [ "high-dimensional-body", "arc floor", "arc-agi", "arc lane", "what is the status of the arc lane", "arc body resistance", "arc participation ratio", "did sundog solve arc" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "audit_chain_receipt", "answerTemplate": "No ARC solution or benchmark result. Earned: the most promising body signal so far - the task structure resists easy shortcuts more than anything else measured. Boundary: it still falls below the pre-registered high-dimensional bar, so the verdict is inconclusive and unpromoted.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_ARC.md", "section": "Phase 3 / Phase 4", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_ARC.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "No ARC solution, SOTA, or benchmark-beating claim.", "PR ~11 is below the pre-registered high-dim bar (>= 20); the threshold is not retuned.", "The verdict is inconclusive, not a high-dim-body result." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the generality boundary map", "href": "/generality" }, "earned": "The most promising body signal so far: the task structure resists easy shortcuts more than anything else measured - just not yet enough.", "earnedDetail": "The least-marginal body-resistance substrate measured to date: participation ratio around 11, reconstruction-resistant, plus a non-zero search floor. It still falls below the pre-registered high-dimensional bar.", "earnedConfidence": "promising" }, { "id": "kakeya_boundary", "failureMode": "explainer-tier", "questionPatterns": [ "kakeya", "what is the sundog kakeya page", "kakeya reader", "finite-field kakeya", "dvir polynomial certificate", "kakeya result" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "conceptual_lineage", "answerTemplate": "No Kakeya result from Sundog. Earned: an honest, review-only explainer built on a known proof. Boundary: it claims no new Kakeya progress, no finite-field-to-Euclidean transfer, and nothing about the open higher-dimensional problem.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_KAKEYA.md", "section": "Claim boundary", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_KAKEYA.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "No Kakeya progress or result.", "No finite-field-to-Euclidean transfer is claimed.", "Credit Dvir's polynomial method; the page is a reader, review-only." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the Kakeya reader", "href": "/kakeya" }, "earned": "An honest, review-only explainer built on a known proof.", "earnedDetail": "A faithful finite-field reader built on Dvir's polynomial certificate. The earned Sundog piece is correct framing and review discipline, not a Kakeya result.", "earnedConfidence": "education" }, { "id": "hodge_boundary", "failureMode": "explainer-tier", "questionPatterns": [ "hodge conjecture", "hodge lane", "hodge", "is sundog attacking the hodge conjecture", "hodge lane", "hodge reader", "hodge scoping note", "hodge conjecture status" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "conceptual_lineage", "answerTemplate": "No Hodge result or attack. Earned: a careful scoping note whose value is knowing exactly where not to claim. Boundary: nothing has run, there is no public evidence page, and it is not progress on the Hodge conjecture.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_HODGE.md", "section": "Claim boundary", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_HODGE.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "No Hodge attack or result.", "Nothing has run; it is a scoping / reader note, UNPROMOTED.", "Do not connect it to the Hodge conjecture as progress." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the generality boundary map", "href": "/generality" }, "earned": "A careful scoping note - its value is knowing exactly where not to claim.", "earnedDetail": "A disciplined boundary-first scoping note on known toy varieties. No run is claimed; the deliverable is guardrails and non-promotion.", "earnedConfidence": "education" }, { "id": "lattice_boundary", "failureMode": "build-gate-partial", "questionPatterns": [ "sundog lattice", "lattice lane", "lattice reasoner", "is the lattice reasoner working", "ldt lattice", "lattice build-gate", "lattice lane status", "sudoku reasoner shipping" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "audit_chain_receipt", "answerTemplate": "No lattice result or product. Earned: the build check did its job - it caught that the model was not ready before any body/fiber result was claimed. Boundary: the gate was partial, not positive; the lane is kill-gated R&D unless a faithful substrate clears the build gate.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/SUNDOG_V_LATTICE.md", "section": "Phase 1 build-gate", "status": "primary", "href": "/docs/SUNDOG_V_LATTICE.md" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "No lattice result or product; a partial build-gate is not a positive.", "No body / fiber / d_dec number is licensed (the build-gate did not reach 100%).", "It is kill-gated R&D, not a shipping product surface." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the generality boundary map", "href": "/generality" }, "earned": "The build check did its job - it caught that the model was not ready before any result was claimed.", "earnedDetail": "A faithful roughly 800K-parameter reimplementation trained, and the build gate caught the generalization ceiling before any body / fiber number was licensed.", "earnedConfidence": "null" }, { "id": "chatv2_boundary", "failureMode": "conditional", "questionPatterns": [ "chatv2", "residual stream body", "residual-stream lane", "body resistance lane", "what is unsettled about chatv2", "scaling generality lane" ], "disposition": "allow_with_boundary", "evidenceTier": "roadmap", "answerTemplate": "No settled scaling or generality result. Earned: chatv2 is the most promising open lane - rich internal structure that holds up as the model scales, pending a stability check. Boundary: the SHARP verdict is seed-stability gated, so the lane is unpromoted.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/chatv2/LANE_CHARTER.md", "section": "The claim this lane makes falsifiable", "status": "primary" }, { "doc": "docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md", "section": "Cross-Substrate Generality Failure Map", "status": "boundary", "href": "/docs/CROSS_SUBSTRATE_NOTES.md" } ], "boundaries": [ "No settled scaling or generality result.", "The SHARP verdict is seed-stability gated; the lane is unpromoted.", "Promising is not proven." ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open the generality boundary map", "href": "/generality" }, "earned": "The most promising open lane: rich internal structure that holds up as the model scales, pending a stability check.", "earnedDetail": "The first deconfounded residual-stream lane where the body both resists its shadow and scales. It remains conditional because the SHARP verdict is seed-stability gated.", "earnedConfidence": "promising" } ], "nonClaimRoutes": [ { "id": "inspect_data", "questionPatterns": [ "where can i inspect the data", "where are the results", "show me the evidence", "audit the project" ], "disposition": "allow", "evidenceTier": "navigation", "answerTemplate": "Start with docs README, docs/SCIENTIFIC_CRITERIA.md, docs/PAPER_v1_draft.md, and results/analysis/analysis_summary.json for the core photometric result. For application surfaces, use docs/APPLICATIONS.md and follow its suggested inspection order.", "support": [ { "doc": "docs/README.md", "section": "Reading Order", "status": "navigation", "href": "/docs/README.md" }, { "doc": "docs/APPLICATIONS.md", "section": "Suggested Inspection Order", "status": "navigation", "href": "/docs/APPLICATIONS.md" } ], "nextAction": { "label": "Open docs README", "href": "/docs/README.md" } } ] }