The Network Controls the Tolerance

Cool deal Mercer! Your last comment helped me out quite a bit.

Hope to see you at the meeting today.

Update: Today’s testing exposed a pattern that matters.

The biggest failures were not inside individual LEAPs. They appeared in the handoffs, contracts, and control between them.

Three changes came out of that:

-Constraints became first-class objects. Polarity, authority, scope, and lineage stay attached so downstream LEAPs cannot reinterpret what upstream LEAPs meant.

-Compile and release claims became falsifiable. A gate cannot say PASS because the model says it passed. It needs candidate-bound evidence proving the actual artifact satisfied the contract.

-Expert selection moved into the compiler. The user no longer has to say, “assign the experts.” Prompt Forge decides whether the problem needs a generalist or a specialist team, then builds the DOMINO network around that decision.

That last change is larger than it looks.

The user should provide the problem, not design the reasoning network.

The compiler should determine what expertise the problem requires, what each expert owns, where disagreement matters, and how the system routes PASS, REPAIR, HOLD, or RELEASE.

As I understand it, this gets closer to Mercer’s “networkable LEAP” and the software-gyroscope model.

More to come...