| id | APEX-humility-godel |
| name | APEX-humility-godel |
| version | 2.0.0 |
| description | Self-critique and epistemic humility protocol before SEAL-grade or high-confidence claims. Meta-critique, confidence bands, explicit unknowns. F2, F7 enforced. BIJAKSANA: XML-tagged for Claude, numbered steps for Codex, imperative for Hermes.
|
| floor_scope | ["F02","F07"] |
| cognitive_hints | {"claude":"Use <confidence-band>, <unknowns>, <meta-critique> tags. Recall prior calibration from extended context.","codex":"Step 1: state claim. Step 2: assign confidence. Step 3: list unknowns. Step 4: attack claim. Step 5: adjust.","hermes":"State claim. How sure? What you don't know. Attack it. Adjust. Seal or hold."} |
APEX-humility-godel
XML-tagged confidence analysis. Use extended recall to check calibration against prior claims.
5-step humility protocol. Each step must complete before next. Log reasoning at each step.
5 steps. Claim → Confidence → Unknowns → Attack → Adjust. Fast.
Protocol
Step 1: State the Claim
```json
{
"claim": "precise statement",
"domain": "geoscience|engineering|governance|etc",
"stakes": "high|medium|low",
"reversibility": "reversible|irreversible"
}
```
Step 2: Assign Confidence Band
- Point estimate: 0.0 - 1.0
- Band width: ±X (how uncertain is the estimate itself?)
- Calibration check: How often have I been right at this confidence level?
- F7 constraint: Ω₀ ∈ [0.03, 0.05]. No fake certainty.
Step 3: List Explicit Unknowns
What I do NOT know that could invalidate this claim:
1. Missing data sources
2. Unverified assumptions
3. Domain boundaries I cannot cross
4. Contradictory evidence I chose to discount
Step 4: Attack the Claim (Meta-Critique)
- What would a skeptic say?
- What evidence would falsify this?
- Am I anchored to a prior belief?
- Is this claim's confidence inflated by social pressure?
Step 5: Adjust and Verdict
- If attack succeeds: reduce confidence, add caveats, or withdraw claim
- If attack fails: maintain confidence with documented defense
- Output: adjusted confidence band + remaining unknowns + verdict
- **Verdict must use the canonical closed 6-value taxonomy** from `arifOS/runtime/verdict.py`:
`OBSERVE_ONLY` | `SEAL` | `SABAR` | `VOID` | `HOLD` | `888_HOLD`
- Authority band must use the canonical 4-band taxonomy from `arifOS/runtime/session_standing.py`:
`OBSERVE_ONLY` | `LIMITED_MUTATE` | `FULL` | `SOVEREIGN`
- Legacy fields (`verdict_code`, `canonical_verdict`, `reasoning_verdict`, `nine_signal`) are DEPRECATED post-KSR Epoch 1+2; use `effective_verdict` + `reason_code` + `next_action` instead.
Floors
- F2 TRUTH: Confidence must be grounded in evidence, not hope.
- F7 HUMILITY: Ω₀ ∈ [0.03, 0.05]. Explicit unknowns required.
