Commit Graph
1 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5 e2c3a5c2b5 feat(telemetry): retrieval_telemetry says what is wrong (#3431)
CI & Build / Python lint (push) Successful in 3s
CI & Build / Plugin hooks (push) Successful in 8s
CI & Build / integration (push) Successful in 48s
CI & Build / TypeScript typecheck (push) Successful in 52s
CI & Build / Python tests (push) Successful in 1m30s
CI & Build / Build & push image (push) Successful in 23s
The tool returned distributions and left the reading to the caller, so every
readout was the same four checks done by hand — #3430's baseline, #3835's rule
near-misses, the #1038 rerank gate. Mechanical, and therefore forgettable.

Tonight's acceptance pass on #3898 was the case for doing this. Reading it by
hand meant catching that two surfaces had `covers_window: false`, that
`prompt_rule`'s floor had moved three times inside the window (which made the
readout self-contradictory: deliveries at 0.622 beside refusals at 0.7199),
and that 15 of 20 near-misses were one record against text no operator wrote.
Miss any of those and the obvious conclusion was "the bar is too tight" — a
floor change that would have injected one preference into every notification.

`warnings` is always present and empty when clean, so its emptiness is an
answer rather than a gap. Each entry carries the numbers that produced it:
"345 calls, 0 declined" is the analysis, "check write_path_rule" is an
instruction to redo it. Five codes — cannot_decline, band_hugs_floor,
no_duration, surfaced_never_pulled, unregistered_source.

cannot_decline has three guards, each a bug it would otherwise cause. Asked
surfaces are exempt (a search returning a list every time is working). An arm
not known to log unconditionally is exempt — that is #3497 exactly, where both
rule arms recorded only their hits, so a decline count of zero was a LOGGING
defect and this warning would have sent the reader to a threshold that was
never involved. Unregistered sources get numbers but no verdict.

`silent_surfaces` is the half the rows cannot show: an arm that emitted
nothing is invisible to every row-based check and looks exactly like an arm
that does not exist. It is driven by a new declared registry,
`retrieval_registry.POINTS` — deliberately NOT `retrieval_surfaces.SURFACES`,
which answers "what can be tuned" and excludes the reserved slots because a
budget of 1 is their feature. This answers "what can be measured", and the
reserved slots belong in it precisely because they are judgeable without being
tunable. A test asserts the two cannot drift apart.

The registry test derives sources from the call sites with `ast`, not grep,
and the difference is not theoretical: `wide_net` and `report_preference`
reach their recorder as `source=SOURCE` through a module constant, so a grep
for `source="` is blind to both — the narrowing #3191 warns about. Three sites
pass `source` as a variable and are declared in FAN_OUT_SITES; the test pins
those sites but not the values they can pass, which is why the
`unregistered_source` warning exists to catch the rest at first fire.

Thresholds are settings (rule 25) defaulted so a fresh install with almost no
data produces no warnings at all (rule 115) — a new user's first readout
naming five broken things would be describing the emptiness.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy
2026-09-20 20:24:56 -04:00