research-document

Grammar Hypotheses v0.1

Grammar Hypotheses v0.1

Status: Hypotheses only

These are not accepted primitives.

Purpose

Record the current grammar hypotheses emerging from FE-012A and FE-012B without treating them as settled architecture.

Hypothesis 1

Procedural reasoning grammar and execution or coordination grammar may be distinct.

Rationale:

FE-012A reconstructed many reasoning-heavy artifacts without major pressure for coordination primitives.

FE-012B produced missing-primitive pressure in coordination-heavy synthesis problems.

Hypothesis 2

Reasoning-heavy artifacts may rely primarily on primitives such as:

  • Bound
  • Observe
  • Interpret
  • Explain
  • Generate
  • Evaluate
  • Decide
  • Verify
  • Reflect
  • Reassess

These appear repeatedly in diagnostic, analytical, and evaluative flows.

Hypothesis 3

Execution-heavy artifacts may require additional primitives such as:

  • Synchronize
  • Schedule
  • Sequence
  • Allocate
  • Coordinate

These are hypotheses, not accepted primitives.

They are pressure terms inferred from FE-012B gaps, not validated additions.

Hypothesis 4

Some primitives may function as bridge primitives across both grammars.

Possible bridge candidates:

  • Bound
  • Observe
  • Decide
  • Communicate
  • Reassess

Current Weaknesses

  • The current evidence comes from internal runs rather than independent multi-analyst testing.
  • The candidate execution primitives have not been independently extracted from blinded artifacts.
  • The boundary between Evaluate, Compare, and Prioritize remains unsettled.

Next Tests

  • Blind extraction focused on coordination-heavy artifacts
  • Independent synthesis with and without candidate execution primitives
  • Direct comparison of reasoning-heavy and execution-heavy artifact families