2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5.5	6028d78844	docs: migration headers keep the before and after, without ids, quotes or one library's numbers (#6277) ... Applies rule 32's migration exception: each header still says what the schema was, what changes and what it prevents, but task, milestone, decision and rule ids are replaced by the practice they stood for, the operator quotes by the decision, single-install counts are dropped, and pointers to a deleted package and an external design doc are gone. golang-migrate keeps no checksum, so editing applied migrations' comments is safe. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-10-23 12:34:39 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	799dab029a	feat(discover): rank suggestions by taste-tag overlap — #2377 (server) ... The payoff slice. Until now a candidate's only claim on a slot was "some artist you play is adjacent to it in a similarity graph" — a fact that says nothing about whether the music sounds like anything you like. Now the candidate's own folksonomy tags (cached by slice 5) are compared against the user's taste-profile tags, so the deck ranks on taste and can say WHY. The blend is MULTIPLICATIVE — score × (1 + weight × overlap) — and that choice carries the whole safety argument: - An untagged candidate has overlap 0, so its score is EXACTLY unchanged. Tag coverage is permanently partial (#2376); it must cost a candidate nothing, not sink it (rule #131). - Nothing can leapfrog on tags alone. An additive term with a large weight would let a near-zero-similarity artist outrank a strong match for sharing one popular tag, which reads as noise. - Weight 0 restores pure similarity order bit-for-bit, so the operator's knob has a real off position. overlap = Σ(shared) candWeight × normalizedTasteWeight ÷ Σ(all) candWeight. Normalizing the taste side by the user's strongest tag makes the score comparable across users (taste weights accumulate with listening, so a heavy listener's raw numbers dwarf a new user's while meaning the same thing). Dividing by the candidate's own mass makes it comparable across candidates, so a densely-tagged artist can't win on tag count alone. Applied to the whole over-fetched pool BEFORE selectSuggestions, so the rotation and diversity rules operate on blended scores — boosting only the twelve already chosen by similarity would leave the re-ranking undone. A query failure is returned, NOT degraded past. Graceful degradation is for expected absence (no taste profile, no cached tags) and both are handled explicitly as empty inputs; swallowing a real error would hide a broken DB behind a subtly worse ranking that nothing reports. Migration 0051 adds a FOURTH tuning scope rather than columns on taste_tuning, because snooze_days lives here too and a snooze must never be read as taste signal (#2374) — filing it under 'taste' would put it one careless join from the leak that design forbids. Expanding recommendation_tuning_audit's CHECK is in the same migration per rule #36, and a test asserts the audit row lands, which is what would catch its absence. snooze_days moves out of a Go constant onto the tuning card (rule #25), closing the deferral from #2374. Tag-overlap tests use deliberately SKEWED fixtures: an evenly-matching pool cannot exercise a re-ranking, since every candidate gets the same multiplier and the order is unchanged whether the blend works or not. Admin UI + client attribution follow in this batch — rule #27. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-08-02 20:31:12 -04:00