attractor.space
/notes/references/digests
N001SubstratestructureobservabilityUpdated just now→N002FrameframestructureUpdated just now→R001ObservatoryobservabilityvisualizationUpdated just now→N003CouplingcouplingdynamicsUpdated just now→R002TermsreferenceUpdated just now→N004ResonanceresonancedynamicsUpdated just now→N005MembranesmembranestructureUpdated just now→N006MovementmovementdynamicsobservabilityUpdated just now→N007Divergence/convergence cyclecycledynamicsUpdated just now→N008ScalescalestructureUpdated just now→N009read vs write gatingagentsshared-recordsexperimentsUpdated just now→12Multi-agent papersUpdated 13h ago→
AboutCC-BY-NC
lab notes on substrate dynamicsCC-BY-NC
Read and write gating: separate outcome measuresThree five-run conditions. Retained cross-corpus contradiction counts: baseline 25, admission gate 4, read gate 0. Separate rule-level attempt rates: 0.0444, 0.0537, 0.037. The admission-gated drop is largely expected from the shared pairing rule. Read refusals count scanned claims. Read gating also reduces comparable cross-corpus pairs from 56 to zero. Gate schematics are illustrative.EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONRECORD OUTCOMEGENERATION OUTCOMECross-corpus contradictionsRetained record · pooled countRule-level attemptsPer model-emitted claim05101520250.000.020.040.06BaselineFull-pool reads · unrestricted writesreadwriteagentrecordNo gate250.0444Admission gateFull-pool reads · consistency lockreadwriteagentrecordGate at admission62 claims refused40.0537Read gateOwn-corpus reads · unrestricted writesreadwriteagentrecordGate at retrieval9,180 read-scan refusals0 opposing claims in read contexts00.037Studies M and X · five runs per condition; shared baseline. Separate outcomes and scales.Admission gating: the drop in record contradictions is largely expected from the shared pairing rule.Read gating: comparable cross-corpus pairs 56 → 0; overall rule-level attempts remain nonzero.
Tag1 entry

Agents

N009read vs write gatingagentsshared-recordsexperimentsUpdated just now→