research/critic-findings-instruction.json

{
  "critic": "instruction",
  "findings": [
    {
      "severity": "low",
      "section": "## 2. The World-Model Goal: Training Latent What-If Deliberation",
      "issue": "The prompt-decomposition entity 'World-model / latent-simulation literature' lists 'Chain of World' as a required_field, and the vault holds a dedicated note (260303195-chain-of-world-world-model-thinking-in-latent-motion.md) plus a synthesis lens note on it. The report's world-model section grounds latent deliberation in CWM [13], MuZero [14], Dreamer [15], From Word to World [12], and the foresight-governance paper [11], but never names Chain-of-World. Chain-of-World is the most direct 'latent-motion world-model thinking' analogue to the query's 'world-model latent deliberation' framing, so its absence is a small but real coverage gap on an explicitly-enumerated atomic item.",
      "fix": "Add a one-clause citation to Chain-of-World where the report introduces value-equivalent latent prediction, e.g. after the MuZero/Dreamer sentence on line 27, append a clause noting Chain-of-World as the SWE-adjacent 'latent-motion' precedent for thinking in a learned latent rather than reconstructing full state. Keep it to one sentence; do not expand the section.",
      "anchor_quote": "MuZero and Dreamer add the design discipline: learn the *value-equivalent* latent"
    }
  ],
  "overall": "Instruction-following is excellent and needs no structural intervention. All 11 required H2 headings appear verbatim and in the exact order specified by research/prompt-decomposition.json (lines 9, 23, 37, 61, 95, 112, 138, 163, 181, 189, 208), with the expected '## Sources' as a 12th. All six required tables are present and correctly scoped: GA mapping (line 41), P0-P6 branch-usage experiment with arms+metrics+predicted ordering+explicit falsifier (line 83), repo reuse-vs-build ledger (line 116), paradigm comparison Socratic-RL/Socratic-SWE/Composer-2.5/proposed (line 142), EKS component table (line 169), and phased build plan (line 199). Every atomic sub_question is covered: world-model goal (S2, definition + next-state-prediction signal + MuZero/Dreamer/CWM + ECE/Brier/foresight@k measurement); GA framing (S3, all six concepts populated + where-it-breaks in three named places); the CENTRAL prune-vs-train-on-all question is answered as typed train-on-all under two hard gates AND backed by a concrete generate-once/route-many P0-P6 experiment with primary metrics and a stated falsifier; the '2 sections or 1?' question is answered head-on as 'two loops at different timescales, not two phases' (line 97); EKS is UNAMBIGUOUSLY PRIMARY -- the heading is '(Primary)', line 165 opens 'EKS is primary, with a single control plane', S9 frames SageMaker as 'not a competing platform ... an inner-loop node-group swap on the same control plane', and the honest EKS-demotion path on line 193 is scoped strictly to the sandbox-execution pool, never the control/training plane; the SageMaker/HyperPod path is concrete (1:1 control-plane mapping, ~150 LOC SageMakerExecutor, Training-Jobs-vs-HyperPod selection); repo grounding is dense and file-line-anchored throughout (teacher_replay.py, env.py, claude_code.py, composer_trainer.py, ADRs); cost/throughput is quantified ($0.98 vs $64/trace, 60-80% gating savings, $0.05/round comm, 50-70% Spot, SWE-MiniSandbox ~5%/~25%). The provenance guardrail (Channel 3 + tree are the framework's OWN additions, Cursor = Ch1 Dr.GRPO + Ch2 SDPO) is stated up front (line 7) and honored repo-wide. The single finding is a low-severity missing-citation nit (Chain-of-World), not a coverage failure.",
  "findings_note": "one low finding only; axis is solid"
}