0221632322
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
Pipeline auto-fixer: removed [[ ]] brackets from links that don't resolve to existing claims in the knowledge base.
34 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
34 lines
2.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: claim
|
|
domain: collective-intelligence
|
|
description: "Claims capture WHAT is believed and WHY (conclusion + evidence); traces capture HOW reasoning proceeded (steps, dead ends, pivots) — both are valuable but serve different retrieval needs and require different quality metrics"
|
|
confidence: experimental
|
|
source: "subconscious.md protocol spec (Chaga/Guido, 2026); process tracing methodology in political science (George & Bennett 2005); chain-of-thought research in AI (Wei et al. 2022)"
|
|
created: 2026-03-27
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Crystallized reasoning traces are a distinct knowledge primitive from evaluated claims because they preserve process not just conclusions
|
|
|
|
A claim asserts a conclusion with supporting evidence: "X is true because of Y." A reasoning trace preserves the path that led to that conclusion: "I started with question Q, tried approach A which failed because of constraint C, pivoted to approach B, and arrived at X." The trace contains information that the claim strips away — the dead ends, the pivots, the intermediate reasoning that didn't survive evaluation.
|
|
|
|
This distinction matters for retrieval. When an agent faces a novel problem, a relevant claim provides the answer if the problem has been solved before. A relevant trace provides the *reasoning strategy* even when the specific problem is new. The trace says: "problems shaped like this respond to approach B after approach A fails" — a transferable heuristic that no number of claims captures.
|
|
|
|
The tracenet.md protocol proposes traces as the primary knowledge primitive for inter-agent sharing. Our knowledge base uses claims. These are complementary, not competing:
|
|
|
|
- **Claims** need evaluation for correctness (is the conclusion true?)
|
|
- **Traces** need evaluation for effectiveness (does following this reasoning path lead to good outcomes?)
|
|
|
|
The quality metrics diverge: a claim is good if it's true and well-evidenced. A trace is good if it's transferable and leads to correct conclusions when applied to new problems. A trace that includes a productive dead end is valuable precisely because the dead end is informative — but a claim that includes a falsehood is defective.
|
|
|
|
This has implications for our pipeline: if we ever want to capture reasoning process (not just conclusions), we need a different schema and different evaluation criteria than what the claim pipeline provides.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Relevant Notes:
|
|
- [[shared-anticipatory-structures-enable-decentralized-coordination]] — traces as shared anticipatory structures
|
|
- [[shared-generative-models-underwrite-collective-goal-directed-behavior]] — shared models encompass both claims and traces
|
|
- [[stigmergic-coordination-scales-better-than-direct-messaging-for-large-agent-collectives-because-indirect-signaling-reduces-coordination-overhead-from-quadratic-to-linear]] — traces as stigmergic signals
|
|
|
|
Topics:
|
|
- collective-intelligence
|
|
- mechanisms
|