feat(ogar-dismech): mint 19 DisMech causal predicates as a Vocabulary

[AdaWorldAPI]

What

Adds the DisMech causal-graph predicate palette on top of the existing DISMECH_CONCEPT_ID (0x0333) reservation in crates/ogar-dismech/, mirroring ogar-ro's RelationVocabulary structure exactly (DisMechPredicate struct, a dismech_palette! macro, contiguous FnIndex consts, a by_index position lookup, an ogar_loco::Vocabulary impl, and a plug_into helper for VocabularyRegistry).

The 19 predicates — a measured, closed set

These are the complete predicate vocabulary emitted by the upstream DisMech causal-graph builder (monarch-initiative/dismech, src/dismech/graph.py), minted contiguously from DOMAIN_FLOOR (0x90):

Slot	Predicate	Slot	Predicate	Slot	Predicate
0x90	causes	0x97	influences	0x9E	measures
0x91	leads_to	0x98	targets	0x9F	rescues
0x92	triggers	0x99	treats	0xA0	readout
0x93	exacerbates	0x9A	models	0xA1	contributes_to
0x94	predisposes_to	0x9B	partially_models	0xA2	variant_of
0x95	protects_against	0x9C	fails_to_model
0x96	modulates	0x9D	perturbs

Each is a binary, non-branching, non-pushing leaf assertion (same shape as ogar-ro's relation calls: it asserts an edge, it does not compute a value for a caller), declaring the new DISMECH_TARGET_CODEBOOK — the basin-local operand-resolution codebook, mirroring RELATION_TARGET_CODEBOOK.

Why dismech:*, never RO:* — the whole decision

Every CURIE uses the dismech: namespace. This is grounded in what upstream itself does, not a style preference:

• Upstream's own SEPIO exporter declines to claim RO terms for its causal predicates — it defines its own namespace constants (dismech:causally_upstream_of, dismech:has_pathophysiology) rather than reaching for a similar-sounding RO term.
• Across the entire upstream src/ tree there is exactly one RO: literal, and it names corpus data (a gene-disease association), never one of the graph-builder's own predicate names.

So minting these 19 under RO: CURIEs — even where a plausible match exists (causes → RO:0002411 is the tempting one) — would assert a claim upstream deliberately declined to make. ogar-ro's own 2026-08-10 precedent covers exactly this: its confounds_test predicate uses LOCAL:, and has_interpretation/interprets use SCTID:, specifically because "no RO term carries the [needed] semantics… the byte is the normalized predicate either way; the CURIE records provenance, never a second dispatch key." Same reasoning, applied uniformly to all 19 rows here.

Left open, not resolved: upstream's SEPIO export uses the label causally_upstream_of for its causal family, which is not one of the 19 graph-builder predicate names minted here. Whether dismech:causes and dismech:causally_upstream_of denote the same relation under two labels is undetermined — the module doc says so explicitly rather than assuming either way.

Tests

13 tests in ogar-dismech (up from 3): closed-set size (RELATIONS.len() == 19) and bounds (0x90..=0xA2), contiguous-slot by_index lookup with refusal at both edges, per-predicate binary/non-branching/non-pushing/codebook shape, an anti-vacuity CURIE-namespace guard (every CURIE starts with dismech:, and — the silence twin — none starts with RO:/BFO:), name/CURIE-suffix uniqueness, and registry plug_into + duplicate-concept refusal (RegistryError::ConceptTaken). The existing DISMECH_CONCEPT_ID const and its collision-guard tests are untouched and still pass.

Added an ogar-loco path dependency (same shape ogar-ro uses).

Verification

• cargo test -p ogar-dismech — 13/13 pass
• cargo test -p ogar-ro -p ogar-obo — no regression (47 + 10 + 4 integration tests pass)
• cargo fmt -p ogar-dismech --check — clean
• cargo clippy -p ogar-dismech --all-targets -- -D warnings — clean except one pre-existing clippy::assertions_on_constants finding in the untouched collision-guard test (stays_in_the_0x03_ontology_domain_clear_of_documented_bands), confirmed present on main before this PR and unrelated to this change; left untouched per the collision-guard-tests-stay-untouched instruction.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

---

Generated by Claude Code

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard.
To continue using code reviews, you can upgrade your account or add credits to your account and enable them for code reviews in your settings.

[cursor]

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Bugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit.

A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard.

(requestId: serverGenReqId_3fa6b0d8-8d34-4074-88b5-cb264ed68e06)

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review available on request

• 🔍 Trigger review

Reviews should be triggered manually for repositories with fewer than 10 stars. Select Trigger review above or comment @coderabbitai review to review the latest changes. For a full review, comment @coderabbitai full review.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 70050b49-7fe5-4352-ac25-ef1332dd658f

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}