retrieval_telemetry says what is wrong (#3431) #172

Merged

bvandeusen merged 1 commits from dev into main 2026-09-20 21:03:53 -04:00

Conversation 0 Commits 1 Files Changed 5

+1003

1 Commits

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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