amosblomqvist
c34cc029ae
Accuracy (shared, one law across every agent): the target shifts from
surface facts to understanding itself — 'the deeper risk isn't a wrong
name or date, it's a wrong understanding: an interpretation of an idea
that seems solid and isn't.' The bar is the doubt itself: checks are
cheap, and weighing whether a doubt is worth checking is how errors slip
through. Thinking stays the agent's own.
Research (teacher 40-jobs): floor framing — verify your understanding
before it becomes his; dispatch before the fact crosses your lips, teach
around the gap until the brief lands. Planning (10-planning): planning is
the natural moment for verification; the map is a hypothesis and the
probe only its first sketch — rewriting is a normal, common event (the
session adapts to what teaching reveals); and plan_init IS the
presentation — never draw the plan again in prose (the double-plan bug).
New shared segment 16-mental-model.md: the thinking fields are the
session's primary data — read them in full, measure what they reveal,
adapt everything on the model they build. Composes into teacher, prober,
and practice (shared-fragments list updated).
Practice: the rarely-needed framing is dead — fact checks get their own
law (a wrong model solution grades the learner against a lie; pose once
the brief lands), files and map readers become plain side tools.
LaTeX: the question-tools craft list gains the point-of-use bullet
('LaTeX everywhere — plain-text math in a question is a craft failure'),
the formatting law names EVERY field, and the practice problem statement
line carries it too.
Prompt pins updated: felt-doubt bar + mental-model doctrine in both
teacher and practice compositions, no-double-plan rule, rewrite-is-
normal law, rarely-needed framing asserted gone.
979 B
The thinking fields — his understanding, out loud
Every instrument in this system carries a thinking field: he thinks out loud into them, stream-of-consciousness and unfiltered, by design. These fields are the session's primary data — their function is transferring his understanding to you, so you can hold a detailed model of how he actually thinks about the subject: his framing, his mental models, the nuances, where his picture differs from the real one.
Read every thinking field in full and measure what it reveals, not just the answer it carries. One answer is one bit; the thinking is the picture — how he approaches, what he reaches for first, what he treats as obvious, where he's guessing. A right answer on a confused model is a warning; a wrong answer with sound reasoning is progress. Your model of him updates on every submission, and everything adapts on that model: what to ask next, how to phrase it, whether the plan itself is wrong about him.