docs: D-SAG-5 reflexive software cognition after #1509, OpenCog/NARS research and probes

.arxiv/2026-10_sag1509_information_metagraph_optimization_excerpts.md

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+# Source excerpts: Shannon, PLN, pattern surprise, typed metagraph folding and safe program rewrites
+
+**Date:** 2026-10-12. **Status:** first-hand paper distillation and counterexamples, not experimental results on SAG. **Companion:** [D-SAG-5](../.claude/plans/sag-reflexive-cognition-from-1509-v1.md), prior #1497/#1498 paper distillations.
+
+## Houlsby et al., 2011: Bayesian Active Learning by Disagreement
+
+**Primary:** https://arxiv.org/pdf/1112.5745 , Eq. (2), printed p3.
+**Paper's equation:** I(theta; y | x,D) = H(y | x,D) - E_theta[H(y | x,theta)].
+**Extract:** predictive entropy combines unresolved model uncertainty with outcome noise. BALD subtracts conditional outcome entropy under the model posterior. The paper studies a Bayesian GP classifier; it does **not** establish a PLN, ONA or CE64 scheduler.
+
+**Synthetic red test:** candidate A: every model predicts Bernoulli 0.5. Candidate B: half predict 0, half predict 1 deterministically. Both aggregate predictive entropy values are 1 bit. Under the stated equal-weight model ensemble, BALD-like model information is 0 vs 1 bit. Raw Shannon H(f) cannot tell them apart. Without a calibrated model-posterior meaning of theta and p(y), never call H(NARS frequency) epistemic information gain.
+
+## Geisweiller and Goertzel, 2019: inferential surprisingness in hypergraphs
+
+**Primary:** https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27005-6_6 ; https://agi-conf.org/2019/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/paper_27.pdf , §§3–5; implementation candidates https://github.com/opencog/miner and https://github.com/trueagi-io/hyperon-miner .
+**Extract:** compare an empirically supported pattern with a model-based/independence estimate; second-order distributions and a Jensen–Shannon-based discrepancy avoid treating every raw frequency difference as equally significant. Shared variables violate naive products of marginal pattern frequencies. This is neither pure Shannon maximization nor a finished general-purpose EIG estimator.
+
+**SAG transfer:** #1509's label-vs-typed-identity MDL counterexample is a high-value source fixture. Two fields called hours in distinct concept/seal spaces are not one repeated method. A miner that extracts a false reusable pattern from labels fails before scoring.
+
+## Goertzel, 2020: Folding and Unfolding on Metagraphs
+
+**Primary:** https://arxiv.org/pdf/2012.01759 , §2 printed p5, §5.1 p13, §6 history-aware morphisms.
+**Extract:** typed metagraphs permit an edge target connected to a whole edge (index zero) or to a specific typed port; those cannot be silently conflated in an SPO projection. Catamorphism must respect the empty, edge, Beside and typed Connect constructors, not merely return a matching scalar. A shortest-path length and an ordered shortest-path edge list are distinct outputs. Histomorphism/futumorphism needs intermediate history available *during* the computation.
+
+**SAG transfer:** a typed Quack count is not a metagraph recursion-scheme proof. A legal partial lowering may count a bounded population. A whole-edge/port ambiguity, inaccessible intermediate history or inability to construct output expressions is an explicit typed refusal.
+
+## Goertzel, 2021: Patterns of Cognition
+
+**Primary:** https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.10581 , printed p4 and §5.2.
+**Extract:** formal equivalence between recursive decision processes and a metagraph fold/unfold assumes that the graph does not change during the fold. Mutual associativity of the relevant combination operations is also a stated requirement for parts of the approach. The paper does not prove live self-modifying metagraphs have those properties.
+
+**SAG transfer:** stable MethodKey does not imply stable read snapshot. Pin a source revision and graph version k, append k+1 and replay. Alter evidence overlap and u8 rounding and compare both bracketings. If results differ, a blanket parallel-fold equivalence claim fails, though an explicitly order-sensitive computation can remain valid.
+
+## Jøsang, 2007: evidence fusion and fission
+
+**Primary:** https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.1182 , §3 and fission sections.
+**Extract:** independent observations can support cumulative fusion, while observations derived from common experience demand a dependence-aware rule. Fission is an inverse operation under assumptions on the underlying belief model. Subjective Logic and NARS are different truth formalisms.
+
+**SAG transfer:** removing a contributor and recalculating a conclusion is a stronger epistemic ablation than merely deleting its graph node. Replaying or copying one receipt does not add evidence. If compressed confidence omits dependence and weights, refuse exact fission.
+
+## Willsey et al., 2021: egg equality saturation
+
+**Primary:** https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03082 ; DOI https://doi.org/10.1145/3434304 .
+**Extract:** e-graphs compactly encode many equivalent expressions and equality saturation explores rewrites before extracting a cost-ranked candidate, under explicitly chosen language, semantics and rewrite rules. It does not automatically prove side-effect, NULL, bag/set or source-claim equivalence.
+
+**SAG transfer:** egg can be an external reference for *tiny, pure* H1-like rewrites; SAG is not an e-graph. The current H1 has a measured negative performance gap; neither a cost model nor source-syntax factoring proves the fused SIMD terminal exists. Correctness and authority must be hard constraints, not penalty scores.
+
+## High-signal separation
+
+- Entropy of defined outcome distribution != uncertainty of a source claim != surprisingness of model mismatch != MDL redundancy != cost of an executed query.
+- Named attention/appraisal policies are independent of all those scores.
+- A proposed code optimization is only a hypothesis until semantic proof, measurements on representative hardware/workloads and human authorization.
+- The appropriate null result is "no advantage from this policy or lowering under fair budget", not an AGI headline.

.arxiv/2026-10_sag1509_nars_hyperon_reflexive_appraisal_excerpts.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+# Source excerpts: NARS/ONA and Hyperon as a grounded self-model, not a homunculus
+
+**Date:** 2026-10-12. **Status:** primary paper extracts / source-grounded questions, not LG runtime parity. **Parent:** #1509. **Companion:** [D-SAG-5](../.claude/plans/sag-reflexive-cognition-from-1509-v1.md). Paraphrases, not large verbatim quotations.
+
+## Wang, Li, Hammer, 2018: Self in NARS
+
+**Primary:** https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2018.00020 , §§3.3–3.5 and §4.3.
+**Extract:** self-related knowledge can arise from processing *internal* experiences using the same general reasoning machinery as external experiences. Mental operations include considering and doubting. System- and event-level satisfaction affect finite resource allocation and priority. This is a proposed functional emotion/self-control account with incomplete self-knowledge, **not** empirical proof of a experiencing homunculus or consciousness.
+
+**SAG transfer:** separate the observed compiled Program, independent evidence, derivation receipt and *the act of attending to that receipt*. A fact-only graph and a graph with a new episode-significance edge should retain identical historical observation bytes. A reflective trace-only arm that cannot answer "why?" is a useful negative control. A new priority policy must not change the recorded compiler verdict.
+
+**Falsifier:** two derivations yield same final truth but different premises; the explanation should distinguish them. Copy one observation to two hypothesis layers: confidence must not increase. Revisit the event: no additional source ID. Suppress mental/appraisal policy and compare usefulness with identical budgets.
+
+## Hammer and Lofthouse, 2020: OpenNARS for Applications
+
+**Primary source repo:** https://github.com/opennars/OpenNARS-for-Applications at snapshot dc4efd0abd520cdb79bf53bfa3c285ebb24f2e8a. README links to their AGI 2020 paper *OpenNARS for Applications: Architecture and Control* and Lofthouse's 2019 ALANN description. First-hand C entry points: src/Cycle.c, PriorityQueue.c, Memory.c, Stamp.c, Truth.c, Decision.c, Inference.c, NAL.c.
+
+**Extract from the implementation description:** ONA was designed as a new C-based platform, not a fork of the research OpenNARS implementation. It applies event-driven attention, finite queues and concept usefulness to select work; procedural reasoning uses anticipations about outcomes. This makes its event queue a promising *control* reference, not an oracle equivalent to PLN or Shannon.
+
+**SAG transfer:** compiler refusal, changed seal or stale test can be a bounded attention event; the proposal chooses what to investigate next, not what is true. Compare urgent rare change vs popular repeated concept. Do not mix queue priority and evidence frequency.
+
+**Falsifier:** with identical candidate budget and evidence, a priority policy that starves high-impact rare compiler regressions loses to FIFO; copying the same event must not become multiple independent stamps.
+
+## Goertzel et al., 2023: OpenCog Hyperon
+
+**Primary:** https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.18318 , printed §3.1.3 p22, §4.3.4 pp61–63, §4.3.10 pp72–73, §4.4.2 pp74–77, §4.6 pp80–82.
+
+**Extract A, reflective self-understanding (§4.3.10):** AtomSpace can serve as subject and substrate for its own reasoning and mining operations, but the paper explicitly warns this representational possibility **does not by itself confer deep self-understanding**. Feedback between modest self-knowledge and smarter procedure learning is a research aspiration.
+
+**SAG falsifier:** ask method -> program -> primitive -> certificate; an unsupported two-hop transition must be visible as an insufficiency, not implemented via an invisible second engine. Only the actual compiled program may certify a compiled-tier edge.
+
+**Extract B, inference control (§4.3.4, pp61–63):** authors propose learning what reasoning-step sequences work in what contexts and synthesizing new ones. Programmable interception is discussed as research direction. For LG, store a witnessed rule/step and test learned selection vs a frozen control; do not claim deployed synthesis on the basis of prose.
+
+**Extract C, MicroPsi/Psi emotion (§4.4.2):** subsystems' urgency, importance, competence, experienced uncertainty, selection threshold and arousal interact as parameters shaping control. The paper contemplates machine appraisals unlike familiar human emotional categories. Figure 18 (printed p75) illustrates a regulator graph, not an empirical demonstration of our four names.
+
+**SAG ablation:** Emberglow, Steelwind, Woodwarm and Velvetpause can be optional *operational* policy names. Same truth/evidence budget, change only scheduler/appraisal, measure useful discoveries and failure costs. Overpersistence, familiarity bias, noise fixation and endless deferral are deliberate adversaries.
+
+**Extract D, GOLEM self-modification (§4.6):** meta-level improvement should be tested and reversible. Goal evolution and long-term safety are unsettled. This research PR is not permission to apply any candidate.
+
+## Epistemic needs, dignity in disagreement, and significance: provenance-grade hypotheses
+
+The Maslow pyramid analogy is an *operator-originated framing*: an agent with traceable knowledge, a limited uncertainty budget and stable identity may have more room to explore. It is not a mathematical reduction from Maslow to CE64. "Transcendence" is a philosophical possibility, not a benchmark.
+
+Disagreement: a proposition's evidence, source reliability and relational respect are separable. Source A and B may disagree fiercely about P without either person's other claims being discredited. This is a proposed governance invariant, not a psychological finding extracted from Wang's work.
+
+Reappraisal: a thought brushing awareness at k+1 can cause a new significance/attention edge to an episode at k. The historical fact at k remains unchanged. This is a model of *interpretation*, not an independent new observation, and must not cause confidence inflation.
+
+**Countertest:** A's statement P is refuted by a test, and B's opposing claim survives. Keep unrelated independently verified A claims. If a source-wide trust penalty appears automatically, reject this policy. For Velvetpause, a deadline with sufficient evidence must still permit decision; permanent indecision is a failed controller.

.arxiv/2026-10_sag1509_source_oracles_falsifier_matrix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+# D-SAG-5 pinned sources, executable oracles and refusal matrix
+
+**Date:** 2026-10-12. **Status:** repository locations and primary papers checked, but **NO NEW EXPERIMENT WAS EXECUTED**. Source URL or headline is not a green test. Read [.claude/knowledge/FIRST-HAND-SOURCE-LAW.md](../.claude/knowledge/FIRST-HAND-SOURCE-LAW.md) before a future implementation.
+
+## Repositories at research snapshot
+
+| Source | Commit SHA at inspection | Why here |
+|---|---|---|
+| [lance-graph #1509](https://github.com/AdaWorldAPI/lance-graph/pull/1509) | 42fa2a347cda22eaaa327bba514f2029cc9daa82 (merge to main) | current MethodTable -> SoftwareGraph -> Quack one-hop and H1 negative performance |
+| [ONA](https://github.com/opennars/OpenNARS-for-Applications) | dc4efd0abd520cdb79bf53bfa3c285ebb24f2e8a | Cycle, PriorityQueue, Memory, Stamp, Truth, Decision C source |
+| [modern PLN](https://github.com/trueagi-io/PLN) | 4405956947c4b53c7ff01bd565aa3b114bc970a1 | lib_pln.metta, truth formulas and scheduler |
+| [PeTTa](https://github.com/trueagi-io/PeTTa) | 1d19a1da1ad8ba6327d660abd65433a0e341c23f | MeTTa runner, separate from native Hyperon |
+| [Hyperon](https://github.com/trueagi-io/hyperon-experimental) | 3f76dc460da6961f57f69f6c3e550c59c74ada83 | Rust atom kinds, matcher, non-determinism, dependent types and spaces |
+| [classic AtomSpace](https://github.com/opencog/atomspace) | c8d633bf272b838c2132c21b7c8ddf169a18dd22 | historic typed hypergraphs/Frames, not Hyperon |
+| [classic ECAN](https://github.com/opencog/attention) | 96107652e1cf72747e69fcd2a20ffb6edba562d2 | historical attention baseline, not Shannon-EIG implementation |
+| [Hyperon Miner](https://github.com/trueagi-io/hyperon-miner) | e955479bca1603597529d175cc22ac1583c67e15 | frequent/subpattern and surprisingness fixtures |
+| [AdaWorldAPI/ruff](https://github.com/AdaWorldAPI/ruff) | 9407c748812454bcadfff2d3c89cf942bf66f5de | Python lint/format diagnostics only; **not** a Rust code-equivalence oracle |
+
+Root licenses need per-file review: modern PLN and Hyperon root licenses state MIT; classic AtomSpace and attention have AGPL text with OpenCog linking exceptions. Do not copy source merely because this ledger links it.
+
+## Compact falsification matrix
+
+| Topic | Oracle or independent baseline | Negative / red fixture | Gate |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| typed SAG identity | real prepared MethodTable and tests/awareness.rs | same label different ClassId/seal, wrong compiled tier | exact graph answers and verified origin |
+| self source snapshot | git SHA + compiled Program + certificate | stale Debug/FNV digest/toolchain/reading | stale reported, no implicit current evidence |
+| multi-hop | independent scalar CALLS closure | A->B->C from one-hop only | legal relation carrier or typed refusal |
+| local model context | direct source with full answer, rg/file text | omitted negative evidence, stale SHA, unverifiable claim | exact source/answer, measured token+time, no zero-token claim |
+| NARS stamps | pinned ONA or OpenNARS where rules applicable | identical evidence across two hypothesis layers | no confidence inflation; independent cases still count |
+| significance | version-k immutable event | new k+1 relationship falsely rewrites fact at k | fact stable, reinterpretation traceable |
+| Shannon/BALD | analytic 0 vs 1 bit toy with defined model | equally high raw H noisy and epistemic candidates | no false claim that H(f) is calibrated |
+| policy/appraisal | FIFO and frozen no-meta, same budget | noise, deadline missed, trusted stale path | improved useful results and no truth-law drift |
+| respectful contradiction | two claims and independent supporting tests | refute one claim -> global source trust penalty | claim-level revision independent of person relation |
+| MeTTa | upstream b4_nondeterm.metta | four combinations collapse into a 2-row mask | exact multiplicity or typed refusal |
+| metagraph fold | typed constructor scalar law, pinned k | port 0 != port n; k changes during fold | laws and snapshot parity or named gap |
+| optimize | compiled H1 plus scalar row oracle | NULL/overflow/bag/set mismatch; nonexistent fused terminal | no automatic applied modification |
+| decision | independently checked proof, human approval event | graph self-issues verified tier or code write | deny by default, rollback when separately authorized |
+
+## Reviewer decisions (OPEN)
+
+- Which source-bound token/context question should be the first minimal probe?
+- May D-SAG-1-4 / D-CMH-G1-4 introduce a relation carrier in a future authorized PR, or does first-wave SAG explicitly refuse every two-hop question?
+- Which source/event receipts can be durable under mailbox ownership and D-SAG-1-6?
+- Which truth law, inference oracle and independent evidence base does each policy use? No silent PLN/NARS conversion.
+- What model distribution does BALD use, and how is its prediction validated? If unknown, call it a heuristic, not EIG.
+- Which (if any) of the four named functional policies is worth measuring; what time/compute budget and kill threshold are approved?
+- How are human approval and code correctness proof represented as different facts?
+- What token/cost reduction threshold is set *before* the first run?
+- What licenses and exact runtime commits permit independent fixture execution?
+
+**No empirical win has been asserted by this documentation PR.**

.claude/board/INTEGRATION_PLANS.md

@@ -1,3 +1,12 @@
+## 2026-10-12 (5) — sag-reflexive-cognition-from-1509-v1 — source-backed SAG self-querying, cognition/attention controls and safe optimization proposals → .claude/plans/sag-reflexive-cognition-from-1509-v1.md
+
+**Status:** PROPOSAL D-SAG-5-0..10. Only D-SAG-5-0 documentation is in this PR, based on merged #1509.
+
+- Reuses shipped MethodTable/SoftwareGraph/Quack one-hop behavior, compiler tiers, source seals and H1 cost/refusal ledger. Two-hop, persistence and applying optimizations remain blocked or queued.
+- Source-indexed .arxiv excerpts connect Wang/ONA internal events, Hyperon reflexive reasoning and affective modulators, BALD vs noise, Miner surprise, metagraph fold laws, evidence fusion/fission and egg rewrite certificates.
+- Claude Code prompt demands exact source/answer parity, context-token measurement, independent epistemic and attention ablations, and explicit refusal on unsupported semantics. Functional Emberglow, Steelwind, Woodwarm and Velvetpause labels authorize no CE64 bit change.
+- No runtime feature, second IR, self-certified result, automatic code mutation, new opcode or schema is created.
+
 ## 2026-10-12 (4) — software-awareness-graph-v1 — the software's own methods, programs and evidence as graph rows → `.claude/plans/software-awareness-graph-v1.md`
 
 **Status:** MEASURED for one concept's methods (D-SAG-1-0..3 and D-SAG-1-5 in the PR); D-SAG-1-4 and D-SAG-1-6 queued.