PROBE-REVISION-ATTENTION-VIEW-1 — preserve the cognitive layers, move the view

.claude/plans/probe-revision-attention-view-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,270 @@
+# PROBE-REVISION-ATTENTION-VIEW-1
+
+## Thesis
+
+This probe tests one narrow substrate claim with larger architectural consequences:
+
+> Cognitive work does not need to move through a single serial rung or materialize a new context in order to change focus. Keep the underlying cognitive population stationary, preserve concurrent rung-tagged activity, change the semantic view through typed selectors, and retain the transformation that changed the view.
+
+This is a probe, not a production attention architecture.
+
+It deliberately connects two already-established architectural disciplines:
+
+1. **Mask-native execution** from the lance-graph-java/Panama/Valhalla work: populations stay resident, semantic descriptors compose, materialization is terminal, and execution may lower to predicate/mask/SIMD as appropriate.
+2. **Typed behavioral IR** from the r2sleigh → R2IL → ruff work: behavior remains typed, transformations retain provenance, and reconstruction is a first-class falsifier rather than prose after the fact.
+
+The working split is:
+
+```text
+masking       = what state becomes visible / conductive
+behavioral IR = what transformation occurred
+```
+
+No scheduler is introduced.
+
+## Architectural target
+
+The hinge remains:
+
+```text
+CognitiveWork
+    ↓
+Kanban Evaluation
+    ↓
+Revision
+    ↓
+another cognitive pass
+    OR
+Rubicon Commit
+```
+
+The probe must not reinterpret the rung field as a global program counter. Multiple rung-associated contributions may coexist over one cognitive state:
+
+```text
+R0  ─────── activity
+R1  ── activity
+R2  ───────────── activity
+R3  ───── activity
+R4  ────────── activity
+R5  ─ activity
+R6  ─────────────── activity
+R7  ─── activity
+R8  ───────── activity
+R9  ───── activity
+```
+
+The question is whether focus can change while those independently meaningful contributions remain intact.
+
+Useful mental model: cognitive contributions are Photoshop-like layers; attention/selectors are visibility masks; the effective reasoning view is the rendered composite; a Revision edit changes the view; Rubicon Commit is decision lock-in. Rendering must not require destroying the layer identities.
+
+## Grounded starting facts
+
+The source audit preceding this probe established:
+
+- `RungElevator` is local to one `ShaderDriver`; it is not proof of one global cognitive rung.
+- Multiple independent rung-tagged representations already coexist in shipped code.
+- `ReadOut.lifts` is plural.
+- No representation found so far forces one-hot rung occupancy.
+- Revision currently exposes no focus/mask/scope/branch editing surface.
+- Kanban phase transitions currently record no attention provenance.
+- Existing mask union/intersection operations generally collapse contribution provenance.
+- `RowFocusMask` is prefix/antichain algebra and is intentionally not interchangeable with `FieldMask`.
+- `FieldMask`, `WideFieldMask`, `RowFocusMask`, `Locus`, `GapKind`, and `CausalTopology` are heterogeneous semantic selector families; no universal `CommonMask` contract has been established.
+- `WitnessLens<'a>` provides an existing zero-copy borrowed view seam.
+- Existing witness/lens functions already accept `impl Fn(usize) -> bool` selectors.
+- `GapKind`/`ReasoningGap` and `Locus` already provide production bulk-selection surfaces.
+- `CausalTopology` has the desired semantic variants but currently has no production bulk selector.
+- `ScenarioBranch` is not wired.
+- `↑n` denotes remaining 256-ary address-space breadth, not rung movement.
+- `6×2×8-bit` is a real regular `FacetCascade` geometry over twelve tier bytes.
+
+## Key design rule
+
+Do **not** build:
+
+```text
+CommonMask
+    ↓
+opaque universal bitmap
+```
+
+Test instead:
+
+```text
+heterogeneous typed selectors
+        ↓
+provenance-preserving composition description
+        ↓
+terminal lowering
+    ┌───────────┴───────────┐
+    ▼                       ▼
+predicate                packed mask
+    │                       │
+    └────── zero-copy view ─┘
+```
+
+The semantic composition and the execution artifact are distinct things. The execution artifact may be fused and opaque. The semantic composition must retain who contributed what.
+
+A probe-local representation may conceptually resemble a `ViewPlan` with typed selectors, but this document does not prescribe a production type or enum. Existing receipt/view/plan containers must be audited first.
+
+## Falsifiers
+
+### F-PARALLEL-RUNG-1
+
+Construct one positive executable witness using existing production types only. Prefer one problem / one sealed cognitive state. Produce at least two, preferably three, meaningful rung-tagged contributions in that same state.
+
+Assert that:
+
+- all contributions remain observable;
+- creating a higher-rung contribution does not overwrite, invalidate, or demote lower-rung contributions;
+- no global `current_rung` is required to describe the resulting state.
+
+Do not claim wall-clock thread parallelism unless measured. This falsifier is about concurrent cognitive occupancy, not CPU scheduling.
+
+### F-VIEW-PROVENANCE-1
+
+Compose at least two semantically distinct selectors while preserving their individual identities in the composition description.
+
+The lowered effective predicate/mask may be opaque. The semantic descriptor stack may not be.
+
+Do not modify existing `union()` implementations merely to make this pass.
+
+### F-ZERO-COPY-VIEW-1
+
+Use an existing zero-copy execution seam where possible, first checking `WitnessLens<'a> + impl Fn(usize) -> bool`.
+
+Prove that changing the selected view does not require materializing or copying the underlying `NodeRow` population. If a small selector descriptor allocates, report that separately from population materialization. The invariant is zero population copy, not zero allocation.
+
+### F-TYPED-EDIT-ROUNDTRIP-1
+
+Represent one view/attention change as a typed transformation and require exact reconstruction:
+
+```text
+BEFORE + EDIT == observed AFTER
+```
+
+The edit vocabulary must be the smallest lawful shape derived from existing semantics. Do not invent a universal cognitive instruction set.
+
+This is behavioral IR at probe level. It is not behavioral learning.
+
+### F-REVISION-FOCUS-1
+
+If current Revision APIs cannot carry a view edit, record `ABSENT`.
+
+Then prove the intended behavior only through a clearly probe-local adapter:
+
+```text
+same underlying cognitive state
+    ↓
+initial typed view
+    ↓
+Evaluation
+    ↓
+probe-local Revision view edit
+    ↓
+same underlying state, different effective reasoning view
+```
+
+Do not substitute `RungElevator` for Revision.
+
+### F-NON-DESTRUCTIVE-1
+
+Changing the effective view must not erase underlying concurrent cognitive contributions. Only visibility/selection may change.
+
+### F-HETEROGENEOUS-SELECTOR-1
+
+Demonstrate that semantically different selector families can participate in one composition description without pretending to have identical physical representation or algebra.
+
+Success means heterogeneous semantics are preserved and a common lowering path exists where lawful. Failure means reporting the concrete incompatibility. Do not fix failure by introducing `CommonMask`.
+
+### F-UNKNOWN-TEXTURE
+
+Do not force this through `CausalTopology` in this probe. Its variants remain semantically important, but no production bulk selector currently exists.
+
+Use production-wired `GapKind` / `ReasoningGap` / `Frontier` and `Locus` first if they can express the distinction honestly. Record CausalTopology bulk selection as later work only if a real consumer warrants it.
+
+### F-RUBICON-BOUNDARY-1
+
+Do not claim Commit provenance is solved. Current findings indicate `KanbanMove` carries no attention/mask provenance and calcification remains incomplete.
+
+This probe stops at a typed view/edit existing before Commit. Persistence across the Rubicon remains open.
+
+## Behavioral-BPE consequence
+
+This probe must **not** implement behavioral BPE.
+
+Its responsibility is only to make future learning possible by preserving a typed, reconstructible cognitive transformation.
+
+Future direction, explicitly outside scope:
+
+```text
+repeated grounded episodes
+        ↓
+typed attention/reasoning transformations
+        ↓
+recurrence detection
+        ↓
+behavioral compression
+        ↓
+reusable behavioral IR/template
+```
+
+The intended future learning unit is not prose such as “try a counterfactual.” It is a recurring transformation of attention, scope, reasoning geometry, warrants, and resulting state that repeatedly survives grounding.
+
+## AGI relevance, deliberately bounded
+
+The architectural wager is:
+
+- **masking** prevents movement/materialization of cognitive state;
+- **typed behavioral IR** prevents useful cognitive transformations from evaporating into opaque outcomes;
+- **Revision** provides pre-commit plasticity;
+- **Rubicon** provides commitment discipline;
+- **grounding** is required before recurrent behavior may become learned grammar.
+
+Together these may eventually support a system that improves its reasoning repertoire without serializing cognition or retraining an entire model for each learned maneuver.
+
+This probe proves none of that. It proves one prerequisite:
+
+> A cognitive view can change non-destructively over concurrent state, and the transformation can remain typed and reconstructible.
+
+## Explicit non-goals
+
+This probe does not:
+
+- create a central scheduler;
+- define a global current rung;
+- serialize R0..R9;
+- create `CommonMask`;
+- add universal NOT/XOR merely for algebraic symmetry;
+- change CE64 layout;
+- wire CausalTopology bulk queries merely to satisfy the diagram;
+- resurrect `ScenarioBranch`;
+- couple `temporal.rs` to attention;
+- define Frozen/Learned/Explore thresholds;
+- implement behavioral BPE or reinforcement learning;
+- implement Rubicon persistence;
+- tune the #1000 heuristic thresholds;
+- make `RungElevator` the metacognitive controller;
+- merge #1000 by implication.
+
+## Success criterion
+
+The strongest acceptable claim after this probe is:
+
+> At probe level, one cognitive state can retain multiple rung-associated contributions while a typed, provenance-preserving selector composition is changed and lowered into a different zero-copy reasoning view. The change is reconstructible as a typed behavioral transformation. No global rung transition or central scheduler is required.
+
+Nothing stronger.
+
+## Failure is useful
+
+Fail closed. If concurrent rung occupancy, heterogeneous selector composition, zero-copy lowering, edit reconstruction, or preservation of underlying contributions is impossible, report the exact representation or ownership boundary that prevents it.
+
+Do not widen the probe to repair every discovered gap.
+
+The purpose of this slice is to find the smallest real substrate seam where:
+
+```text
+attention conductivity
+        meets
+typed behavioral transformation
+```