bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5
cf0d37bf8e
TestSuggestArtists_UntaggedCandidateSurvivesAlongsideTagged asserted the untagged candidate's score was 0.9 — the raw similarity value I'd seeded. It's actually 1.61, because the pool score is signal-weighted by the seed query: ln(1+signal) x similarity, and a liked seed carries signal 5, so ln(6) x 0.9. The assertion was testing the seeding arithmetic, which is a different layer and not what the test is about. Rewritten to run the same request twice — once with the tag term disabled, once enabled — and assert the untagged candidate's score is IDENTICAL across both. That states the real property (the blend leaves untagged candidates alone) without depending on how the pool score is derived, so it survives future changes to seeding. Added a sanity assertion that the TAGGED candidate's score did move, so the comparison can't pass by both runs being trivially identical — the same "a test that cannot fail" trap recorded for this milestone. Exact-preservation at the arithmetic level is already covered where it belongs, by TestApplyTagOverlap_UntaggedCandidateScoreIsUnchanged. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>