← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.06013 · v1
When Does a Cross-Device Run Justify PASS? Obligation-Level Evidence Qualification under Partial Observability
首次提交 2026-11-04 14:03
版本更新 2026-11-04 14:03
雷达观测 2026-11-05 11:10
摘要
A cross-device test can complete every command yet judge a business claim from evidence belonging to another device or attempt. We introduce an executable evidence contract that makes support qualification an explicit stage before predicate evaluation. It binds each obligation to admissible subjects, episodes, objects and observation scopes, and records unresolved support rather than treating an apparently successful observation as proof. We evaluate two implemented parts of the contract. A prospectively specified, 12-seed controlled study isolates association under reused identifiers across 2,304 claims. Given identical records and business policy, Atomic-Facts Flat produces 160 false PASS and 76.30% PASS recall; supplying computed associations reduces false PASS to five and increases PASS recall to 99.09%. Deterministic Closure produces zero false PASS and 100.00% PASS recall, improving on Atomic Flat in 11 seeds with one tie (two-sided sign p=0.00098). Most of the benefit comes from explicit association rather than graph notation. A separate prospective field characterization spans four workflows, 40 physical episodes and 80 claims. Against frozen reference labels, the physical-evidence verifier attains 95.00% accuracy and 100.00% PASS recall (27/27), with three false PASS judgments. The field results are descriptive: a policy-input mismatch prevents the planned matched-policy comparison, and post-hoc sensitivity does not establish superiority over a policy-informed textual baseline. Together, the studies characterize qualification on physical evidence and isolate the value of explicit association under a controlled matching contract.
作者备注：20 pages
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-04 14:03 · 最新观测版本
When Does a Cross-Device Run Justify PASS? Obligation-Level Evidence Qualification under Partial Observability
A cross-device test can complete every command yet judge a business claim from evidence belonging to another device or attempt. We introduce an executable evidence contract that makes support qualification an explicit stage before predicate evaluation. It binds each obligation to admissible subjects, episodes, objects and observation scopes, and records unresolved support rather than treating an apparently successful observation as proof. We evaluate two implemented parts of the contract. A prospectively specified, 12-seed controlled study isolates association under reused identifiers across 2,304 claims. Given identical records and business policy, Atomic-Facts Flat produces 160 false PASS and 76.30% PASS recall; supplying computed associations reduces false PASS to five and increases PASS recall to 99.09%. Deterministic Closure produces zero false PASS and 100.00% PASS recall, improving on Atomic Flat in 11 seeds with one tie (two-sided sign p=0.00098). Most of the benefit comes from explicit association rather than graph notation. A separate prospective field characterization spans four workflows, 40 physical episodes and 80 claims. Against frozen reference labels, the physical-evidence verifier attains 95.00% accuracy and 100.00% PASS recall (27/27), with three false PASS judgments. The field results are descriptive: a policy-input mismatch prevents the planned matched-policy comparison, and post-hoc sensitivity does not establish superiority over a policy-informed textual baseline. Together, the studies characterize qualification on physical evidence and isolate the value of explicit association under a controlled matching contract.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗