← all meta proposals

Add v2_a11 urgency_event_named shadow axis to filter_score.js

filter rejected AXIS reversible: simple 5h proposed 19 May 2026
What is the proposed change?
Add migration s160_add_v2_a11_urgency.js that ALTERs the hypotheses table to add v2_a11_urgency_event_named INT column (default NULL). In filter_score.js highSystem and lowSystem adversarial prompt strings, insert a rubric block for v2_a11 alongside the existing 5 v1 axes. Rubric: Score 3 — hypothesis names a specific external forcing function with a date-bounded trigger: a named compliance regulation + enforcement date, a named contract renewal cadence + typical window, or a named financial consequence (OPEX waste, revenue leakage) the buyer is actively incurring. The forcing function must be external to the vendor relationship and must not be an adjective ('urgent' does not qualify; 'GDPR audit deadline Q4 2026' does). Score 2 — urgency is implied by workflow cadence or category structure (pre-send legal review implies deadline pressure; SLA breach implies consequence) but no named event is cited. Score 1 — pain is real and ongoing but purely analytical or optimization-driven; buyer can defer indefinitely without a named consequence. Score 0 — hypothesis is a dashboard, taxonomy normalizer, or analytics product where adoption has no external forcing function. Anti-gaming instruction appended to both highSystem and lowSystem: 'Score 3 requires a named external event, not a claim of urgency.' Because v2 is not yet wired into the composite graduation formula, v2_a11 scores are captured and stored for analysis without affecting current graduation thresholds. No threshold recalibration required at this stage.
Target files
hypothesis_engine/moves/filter_score.js hypothesis_engine/migrations/s160_add_v2_a11_urgency.js
Expected effect
RevOps Objection Taxonomy Normalizer shape (taxonomy/analytics, CRM-integrated, no named urgency event) scores 0-1. hyp-2026-05-06-ec4507 (Support Escalation with SLA breach consequences and renewal triggers) scores 2-3. Retrospective application to 43 S157-scored candidates shows bimodal clustering: ROBUST 5/5 candidates cluster at 2-3, FRAGILE and unanimously-killed candidates cluster at 0-1.
Falsifier — what would prove this wrong?
Apply axis scoring retroactively to the 43 S157 candidates using their stored descriptions. Required outcomes: (a) score distribution is bimodal — at least 40% of candidates at 0-1 and at least 30% at 2-3; (b) none of the 5 ROBUST 5/5 candidates scores 0-1; (c) at least 3 of the 4 FRAGILE candidates score 0-1. If distribution is uniform (fewer than 20% at 0-1 or fewer than 20% at 2-3), the rubric is not discriminating and must be redesigned.
Evidence that triggered the proposal
  • Corpus E recent council verdicts: hyp-2026-05-10-26fc18 'no observed buyer and episodic-vs-recurring tension unresolved'; hyp-2026-05-11-90778c 'conflict-averse buyer behaviors are unvalidated and likely fatal as designed' — both passed filter_score before council kill, indicating the v1 axes do not catch urgency failure
  • red_team_reviews/meta_engine_s158_round2_gemini-3.1-pro.md What you'd add: 'Add URGENCY_PROFILE axis scored 0-3. Score 3: solves immediate compliance failure, hard OPEX waste, or direct revenue leakage. Score 0: nice-to-have analytics, taxonomy normalization without hard dollar value. Structurally bad hypotheses like the RevOps Objection Taxonomy Normalizer will fail the filter score before reaching the expensive council phase.'
  • META_ENGINE_S158_ROUND2_SYNTHESIS.md: 'The new package still does not catch the Round 1 survivor shape: the RevOps Objection Taxonomy Normalizer... low-urgency commodity wedge with weak urgency: visible adjacent spend, describable workflow, reachable buyer, but no defensible data advantage... urgency-to-budget conversion [is the uncovered failure mode]'

Proposer self-score

The proposer scored its own draft on these axes (0-3 each) before submitting.

AxisScore
specificity2
falsifier3
solo feasible2
blast radius2
composability2
reversibility2
Disposition
Rejected by filter_score. The proposal did not meet the bar for specificity, falsifiability, or solo-feasibility.

Evaluation history

WhenMove
2026-05-19 13:30evidence_search
2026-05-19 11:48audience_simulation
2026-05-19 10:12red_team_kill
2026-05-19 09:53meta_filter_score
2026-05-19 09:42steelman
2026-05-19 09:38meta_genesis