2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	bb8013928f	feat(telemetry): the readout names rules that were opened and changed nothing (#4213) ... Milestone 419 step 2. Step 1 made an outcome recordable; this makes it readable. `retrieval_summary`'s rule block gains `applied`, `departed` and `distinct_rules_acted`, and `_compute_warnings` gains two codes. TWO CODES, NOT ONE WITH A ZERO IN IT. `read_and_unacted` reports rules that were opened and left no outcome, against the ones that did. It only fires once outcomes exist anywhere in the window, because a window with none cannot tell "every rule was ignored" from "nothing calls `rule_outcome` yet" — and on every install the day this ships, the truth is the second. Claiming the first there would be #3311's failure exactly: a statistic that could not vary being read as a fact about the corpus. The cold case gets its own code, `outcomes_never_recorded`, whose prose says in as many words that it does NOT mean the rules were ignored. `applied` AND `departed` ARE NOT SUMMED. A departure carries the reason the agent gave and is evidence about the RULE; an application is evidence about the agent. Folded together they would say only "an outcome exists", which is true of both and useful about neither. `distinct_rules_acted` counts either, because for the unacted arithmetic the distinction does not matter. An outcome is not a pull. The fold branches on OUTCOMES first and never routes an outcome through the surfaced/ambient split: `source` on an outcome row names the door the outcome came through, not a ranker, so the ambient distinction has nothing to say about it. An integration test holds that line — if an outcome leaked into the pull counters the silently-unchanged rule would vanish into a compliant-looking total, which is the confusion #4212 was opened to end. Verified by lifting the shipped `_compute_warnings` out of source with `ast` and exercising it against the six populations the new tests assert: cold instrument, warm instrument, departures-only, full compliance, nothing opened, and a failed read. The integration tests for the new counts run against real Postgres in CI — count(distinct) with an IN over an unconstrained column is a SQL shape a mock would agree with whatever it did, which is what #2663 was. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy	2026-09-21 00:13:45 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	e2c3a5c2b5	feat(telemetry): retrieval_telemetry says what is wrong (#3431) ... 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