m3taversal
f63eb8000a
Mechanical space→hyphen conversion in frontmatter references (related_claims, challenges, supports, etc.) to match actual filenames. Fixes 26.9% broken link rate found by wiki-link audit. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
3.4 KiB
| type | domain | description | confidence | source | created | attribution | related | reweave_edges | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim | collective-intelligence | 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 | experimental | 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) | 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