# v1.7.5 Goal-Stack Claim Inventory

**Pre-eval inventory.** Captures every location in the repo (excluding worktrees, `node_modules`, `results/`, and the v1.7.5 docs themselves) that mentions a `−10pp` / "10pp" / "goal-stack lift" string. Locations classified by relationship to the claim under test.

Generated: 2026-05-07, BEFORE running the eval.

## Locations referencing −10pp / goal-stack lift in the v1.7.5 sense

| Path | Line | Context | Action if HYPOTHESIS NOT SUPPORTED |
|------|------|---------|-------|
| `CHANGELOG.md` | 23 | v1.7.4 entry: "Demonstrate or honestly retire the −10pp trap-rate claim. Needs benchmark runs + honest reporting → own release." | Append note in v1.7.5 entry pointing at result doc. Existing v1.7.4 line stays — it accurately describes the deferral. |
| `docs/plans/2026-04-29-b3-dlpfc-depth.md` | 6 | v2 mechanism rewrite: "drop trap-rate −10pp claim; success becomes a controlled paired test on a new B3 micro-fixture" | Add a header note at the top of the file: "v1.7.5 result: see docs/evals/2026-05-07-v1.7.5-goal-stack-eval-result.md" |
| `docs/plans/2026-04-29-b3-dlpfc-depth.md` | 30 | Stretch (v0.39 target): "sequential-learning trap-rate −10pp lift on the public benchmark. Requires a contract change..." | Same header note — claim status now resolved by the v1.7.5 eval. |
| `TODOS.md` | (B3 follow-ups section) | "B3 follow-up: sequential-learning adapter contract → v1.7.5. ... demonstrate or honestly retire the −10pp trap-rate lift claim" | Mark `[x]` and link to result doc. (Done either way.) |

## Locations with "10pp" strings UNRELATED to the v1.7.5 hypothesis (no action)

These are unrelated uses of the literal substring `10pp` and require no update on the v1.7.5 ship. Listed here for completeness so the retraction sweep doesn't accidentally touch them.

| Path | Line | Why unrelated |
|------|------|---------------|
| `docs/plans/2026-04-21-model-aware-hippo.md` | 15, 305 | Phase A→B decision rule for model-aware tuning headroom. Different mechanism. |
| `docs/plans/2026-04-21-phase-a-decision.md` | 8 | Same model-aware tuning context. |
| `evals/README.md` | 159 | `(-10pp)` accuracy delta for hybrid scoring on R@1 — different benchmark, different metric. |

## Locations with "goal-stack" strings that describe the MECHANISM (no retraction needed)

The mechanism (boost ranking + outcome propagation) is real and shipped in v0.38 / v1.7.4. Mechanism descriptions in CHANGELOG / RESEARCH / README do not depend on the −10pp magnitude and don't need retraction. The v1.7.5 result either supports or fails to support the SPECIFIC −10pp magnitude on the public benchmark; the mechanism remains shipped either way.

The HYPOTHESIS SUPPORTED template will cite measured numbers; the HYPOTHESIS NOT SUPPORTED template will cite measured numbers AND note the magnitude wasn't demonstrated. Both are honest. Neither requires editing existing mechanism prose.

## Worktree exclusions

`./.claude/worktrees/agent-*/...` paths contain stale snapshots of plan files and are explicitly NOT updated. Worktrees are local development scratch and not part of the public surface.

## Result-doc update procedure (if HYPOTHESIS NOT SUPPORTED)

After computing the decision per `docs/evals/2026-05-07-v1.7.5-goal-stack-eval-prereg.md`:

1. Write `docs/evals/2026-05-07-v1.7.5-goal-stack-eval-result.md` with measured numbers and decision.
2. For each row in the "Locations referencing −10pp" table above, apply the listed action (only the `docs/plans/2026-04-29-b3-dlpfc-depth.md` header note and the `TODOS.md` close are net-new edits beyond the result doc itself).
3. Commit each file group separately for diff clarity.

## Result-doc update procedure (if HYPOTHESIS SUPPORTED)

1. Write `docs/evals/2026-05-07-v1.7.5-goal-stack-eval-result.md` with measured numbers and decision.
2. Add a header note to `docs/plans/2026-04-29-b3-dlpfc-depth.md` pointing at the result doc.
3. Mark `TODOS.md` v1.7.5 line `[x]` with link.
4. The CHANGELOG / README "What's new in v1.7.5" entries (written by `/publish-repo`) cite the measured Δ and CI.

Either way, the public surface is consistent with the result, the eval is reproducible, and the audit trail (plan → review → prereg → inventory → result) is complete.
