.. Migration note (2026m04d04): Claude copied this file during VV-to-HELL migration.
   Old path: ``vv/jub/oov2/llog/llog_2026m03d26_integration-tests.rst`` (as given by LLoL)
   New path: ``hell/ll/jub/b/41/jub_ll_2026m03d26_integration-tests.rst`` (as chosen by Claude)
   Category: JUB OOv2 log

.. meta::
   :description: Six read-only integration tests gathering empirical evidence for open BEST Names design questions, including cross-model HELL classification.
   :keywords: integration tests, BEST Names, design questions, empirical evidence, cross-model HELL, Phase 2I, read-only tests, JUB OOv2, Claude Opus, llog
   :author: Yah, Yas, everyone, LLoL as Laurence Loewe of Laodicea, ClaudeOp46Max, Anthropic, and Spirit of Boolean Truth
   :og:card:title: Integration Test Results<br>BEST Names Empirical Data
   :og:card:description: Six read-only tests answer deferred design questions with real data: HELL classification patterns, PoR field coverage, and naming grammar edge cases.

.. SOCIAL-CARD-QUALITY-COMPARE --- OO (default effort) vs PP (max effort), 2026-03-26
   OO :description: Session log: Integration tests gathering empirical evidence for open BEST Names design questions. Part of JUB OOv2 Phase 2I.
   OO :keywords: matheology, JUB, OOv2, Phase 2I, integration tests, BEST Names, design questions, empirical evidence, HELL, llog
   OO :og:card:title: Phase 2I: Integration Test Results
   OO :og:card:description: Six read-only tests gathering empirical evidence for deferred BEST Names design questions, including cross-model HELL classification.
   PP :description: Six read-only integration tests gathering empirical evidence for open BEST Names design questions, including cross-model HELL classification.
   PP :keywords: integration tests, BEST Names, design questions, empirical evidence, cross-model HELL, Phase 2I, read-only tests, JUB OOv2, Claude Opus, llog
   PP :og:card:title: Integration Test Results<br>BEST Names Empirical Data
   PP :og:card:description: Six read-only tests answer deferred design questions with real data: HELL classification patterns, PoR field coverage, and naming grammar edge cases.

.. SOCIAL-CARD-REVIEW --- generated by Claude Opus 4.6, 2026-03-26
   dv_ClaOp46_PP_2026m03d26 --- max-effort rewrite, read full page.
   :description: 141 chars | :og:card:title: 45 chars (excl <br>)
   - [ ] PP title more compelling than OO title
   - [ ] PP description more accurate than OO description
   - [ ] Description hooks without misleading
   - [ ] Keywords specific to this page's actual content
   - [ ] No language rule violations
   - [ ] Character counts verified

******************************************************************************
Phase 2I Integration Tests --- Design Questions Requiring Real Data
******************************************************************************

.. note::

   **Session date:** 2026-03-26

   **Agent:** Claude Opus 4.6

   **Prompt source:**
   ``source/matheology/vv/jub/oov2/prompts/prompt_2I-integration-tests.rst``

   **Purpose:** Gather empirical evidence for the open design questions
   listed in AHA Section 17.1 (``compiler/space/ww/5d-link-naming-matheology-aha.rst``).
   All 6 tests are read-only analysis; no files were modified.

   **VVN:** ``dv_Claude_OOv2r0p0_2026m03d26``

   **AHA reference:** Section 17.1 "Awaiting Integration Data" lists 5
   deferred questions. This session tests all 5 plus cross-model HELL
   classification (Test 6), which emerged naturally from the data.


.. contents:: On this page
   :depth: 2
   :local:


----


Verbatim Prompt
=================

.. container:: verbatim-prompt

   Phase 2I Integration Tests --- Design Questions Requiring Real Data

   .. note::

      **Test prompt for deferred design decisions.** This prompt should be
      run AFTER the Phase 2I integration scripts have processed real content.
      Its purpose is to gather empirical evidence for open design questions
      that cannot be resolved by analysis alone.

      **Context:** The AHA doc (BEST Names architecture, Section 19.2)
      identifies several design questions deliberately deferred until
      real-world data is available. This prompt systematically tests each
      one.

      **Prerequisite:** Phase 2I scripts (content integration, compilation)
      must have run at least once, producing compiled pages with real
      cross-references.

      **Safety:** This is a read-only analysis prompt. It does not modify
      any files. Results should be appended to an llog entry.

   [Full prompt text: 6 tests covering BREACH 1.7 D1/D2 validity,
   sub-element chaining, alignment class echoes, dump depth usage,
   PoR field #40 collision, and cross-model HELL objections.
   See ``prompts/prompt_2I-integration-tests.rst`` for the complete
   verbatim text.]


----


TEST 1 --- BREACH 1.7: D1/D2 Validity (Cross-Model Element Types)
====================================================================

1.0 D1/D2 Matrix
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

.. list-table::
   :header-rows: 1
   :widths: 12 12 12 12 12

   * - D2 type
     - pet
     - jub
     - 4be
     - all
   * - ax
     - **Y** (14: ax1--ax14)
     - **Y** (11: ax15--ax25)
     - **N**
     - **Y** (6 labels)
   * - th
     - **Y** (4: th1--th4)
     - **Y** (7: th5--th11)
     - **N**
     - **Y** (2 labels)
   * - con
     - **N**
     - **Y** (62: con1--con43 + rounds)
     - **N**
     - **N**
   * - pro
     - **N**
     - **Y** (62: pro1--pro43 + rounds)
     - **N**
     - **N**
   * - q (quest)
     - **N**
     - **N** (no ``jub-q*`` label; quest.rst exists but uses con/pro labels)
     - **N**
     - **N**
   * - sym
     - **N** (symbols.rst exists but no ``pet-sym*`` labels)
     - **N** (symbols.rst exists but no ``jub-sym*`` labels)
     - **N**
     - **N**
   * - dis
     - **N** (discussions.rst exists, no ``pet-dis*`` labels)
     - **N**
     - **N**
     - **N**
   * - his
     - **N** (history.rst exists, no labels)
     - **N** (history.rst exists, no labels)
     - **N**
     - **N**
   * - ov
     - **N** (overview.rst exists, no labels)
     - **N** (overview.rst exists, no labels)
     - **N**
     - **N**
   * - td (theodicy)
     - **N** (theodicy.rst exists, no ``pet-td*`` labels)
     - **N** (theodicy.rst exists, ``theodicy-crossref-table`` not D1-prefixed)
     - **N**
     - **N**
   * - any (AnyAims)
     - **N** (anyaims.rst exists, no labels)
     - **N** (anyaims.rst exists, no labels)
     - **N**
     - **N**

**Key:** **Y** = exists with content (count in parentheses).
**N** = not present. No empty stubs (E) found.


1a. Are there pet-con or pet-pro labels?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**No.** Zero ``pet-con*`` or ``pet-pro*`` labels exist anywhere in the
codebase. PET model currently has only ``ax`` (axioms) and ``th``
(theorems) as D2 element types with defined labels.


1b. D2 types used by only one model
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**Yes.** Both ``con`` and ``pro`` are used exclusively by the ``jub``
model. This restriction appears **structural, not accidental**: the
disputatio (quest) structure is a specific feature of the Jubilee model's
adversarial review process. PET has no analogous adversarial critique
framework.

However, several PET content pages exist (symbols.rst, discussions.rst,
history.rst, overview.rst, theodicy.rst, anyaims.rst) that lack
BEST-Names labels entirely. These represent **unlabeled content**, not
missing element types.


1c. Should PET have a disputatio?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**Evidence-based assessment:**

- PET axioms ax1_A1--ax14_A14 are foundational and shared across models. They
  have undergone adversarial review *within the Jubilee quest context*
  (e.g., Con-E.10 / jub-con20 targets ax1_A1--ax4_A4 mereological framework;
  Con-D.6 / jub-con16 targets Piketty evidence base).
- 2 of 33 HELL contentions are PET-applicable (6%), 9 are cross-model
  (27%). These objections already exist under ``jub-con*`` labels.
- Creating ``pet-con*`` labels would either duplicate existing Jub
  contentions or require new adversarial review specifically targeting
  PET in isolation.

**Recommendation:** Do not create a PET disputatio now. The PET axioms
are already stress-tested through the Jub quest. If a future reviewer
specifically targets PET axioms in isolation (e.g., "ax1_A1--ax14_A14 without
Jubilee extensions"), that review would warrant ``pet-con*`` labels.
Until then, cross-reference the relevant ``jub-con*`` entries.


1d. Enforce D1/D2 validity or leave permissive?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**Recommendation: Leave the grammar syntactically permissive; use the
registry linter for semantic warnings.**

Rationale:

1. The grammar already parses ``pet-con1`` without error. Making it a
   parse-time error would require maintaining a validity matrix in the
   parser itself --- fragile and model-dependent.
2. The linter is the natural place for semantic checks ("Warning:
   pet-con1 is syntactically valid but no PET disputatio exists").
3. New models (4be, future) may introduce D2 types not yet foreseen.
   A permissive grammar accommodates this without parser changes.
4. **Evidence strength: strong.** The matrix shows clear model-specific
   patterns but no violations or accidents that enforcement would have
   prevented.


----


TEST 2 --- Sub-Element Chaining
==================================

2a. Cases of natural chaining found
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**Zero implemented chaining labels exist in content files.** All current
labels follow the single-field pattern (``D1-D2N`` or ``D1-D2N-field``).

However, **5 elements were identified in Phase 2I-4 analysis**
(``compiler/sisyf/ee/d2-chaining-evidence.rst``) as having natural
multi-type demand:

.. list-table::
   :header-rows: 1
   :widths: 15 25 20 20 20

   * - Element
     - Natural chain
     - Depth
     - Single-field OK?
     - Notes
   * - ax19_A19
     - ``ax-logic-limit``
     - 3
     - No
     - "Limitation specific to logic framework" loses meaning at depth 1
   * - ax11_A11
     - ``ax-logic``
     - 2
     - Possibly
     - Fork analysis could be separate note
   * - ax14_A14
     - ``ax-logic``
     - 2
     - Possibly
     - Predicate distinction documentable under ``ax`` alone
   * - ax24_A24
     - ``ax-limit``
     - 2
     - Possibly
     - Formal semantics gap fits under general ``limit``
   * - th8_T8
     - ``th-logic-limit``
     - 3
     - No
     - Three distinct concepts: theorem, CTMC logic, falsification limit


2b. Single-field expressibility
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

- **2 of 5 cases genuinely need depth > 2** (ax19_A19, th8_T8). In both cases,
  the inner field qualifies the outer field in a way that loses meaning
  when flattened.
- **3 of 5 cases can be expressed with depth = 2** (ax11_A11, ax14_A14, ax24_A24).
  The second field is sufficient; the third adds specificity but not
  information that cannot be captured in prose.


2c. Recommendation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**Keep single-field (depth = 2) as default. Do not raise the limit.**

Rationale:

1. Zero chained labels exist in actual content. The demand is theoretical.
2. Only 2 of 5 identified cases genuinely need depth 3 (< 6% of the
   25+11 element set).
3. The override mechanism (``.. best-depth:: 3`` directive) already
   exists for rare cases.
4. **Evidence strength: weak.** Insufficient real-world usage to justify
   raising the default. Revisit after Phase 3 compilation produces
   actual chained labels.


----


TEST 3 --- Alignment Class Echoes
====================================

3a. Echoes found
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**4 confirmed structural echoes** between PET and JUB axioms:

.. list-table::
   :header-rows: 1
   :widths: 15 15 30 40

   * - PET
     - JUB
     - Shared concept
     - Relationship
   * - ax1_A1 (Containment)
     - ax16_A16 (Delegation)
     - God-world structure
     - ax1_A1 defines containment; ax16_A16 specifies human authority within it
   * - ax5_A5 (Necessary Existence)
     - ax15_A15 (Genuine Agency)
     - Load-bearing necessity
     - Both are foundational axioms; mirror structural role
   * - ax8_A8 (Immanent Presence)
     - ax17_A17 (Non-Coercive Guidance)
     - Divine-creation relationality
     - ax8_A8 is structural; ax17_A17 is behavioral specification of ax8_A8
   * - ax11_A11 (Dipolarity)
     - ax22_A22 (Divine Preference)
     - Divine nature
     - ax11_A11 defines structure; ax22_A22 explains motivation within it

**Zero theorem echoes found.** PET theorems (th1_T1--th4_T4) and JUB theorems
(th5_T5--th11_T11) address distinct domains. The relationship is vertical
(PET axioms ground JUB theorems), not horizontal (same theorem in
different models).


3b. Clustering
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The 4 echoes do not cluster around specific numbers. The offsets from
PET to JUB are: +15 (ax1_A1-ax16_A16), +10 (ax5_A5-ax15_A15), +9 (ax8_A8-ax17_A17), +11 (ax11_A11-ax22_A22).
The similar offsets (9--15) reflect the systematic numbering gap (PET has
14 axioms, JUB starts at 15), not a natural alignment class size.


3c. Cross-model language in prose
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

No "echo," "alignment," "parallel," or "correspondence" language appears
in the main axiom/theorem content files. All echo identification exists
only in compiler and integration-findings documentation
(``compiler/sisyf/ee/alignment-class-echoes.rst`` and
``vv/jub/oov2/llog/integration-findings/alignment-class-echoes.rst``).


3d. Recommendation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**The alignment class mechanism is warranted but not yet actionable.**

The 4 confirmed echoes form a coherent pattern (PET establishes
structure; JUB specifies behavior/motivation). ``all4e`` is the natural
alignment class size for PET-JUB pairs.

However:

1. No metadata declarations exist yet (no registration of which models
   belong to which class).
2. Only two models tested (PET, JUB). Third model data needed before
   committing class boundaries.
3. The integration-findings summary is incomplete.

**Next steps:** Declare PET-JUB as ``all4e`` members in the D1 registry.
Keep ``all5e``, ``all7e``, ``all12e`` reserved. Wait for third model
before assigning.

**Evidence strength: strong** for the existence of echoes; **weak** for
the specific class size (only 2 models to compare).


----


TEST 4 --- ``dump`` Depth Usage
==================================

4a. Proto-dump pages
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**No pages currently aggregate all sub-element fields for a single
element.** The closest are:

- ``pet/axioms.rst`` and ``jub/axioms.rst``: contain formal statement,
  plain-English reading, explanation, and scriptural support for each
  axiom --- but organized by section, not by PoR field structure.
- ``pet/theorems.rst`` and ``jub/theorems.rst``: same pattern for
  theorems.
- The SISYF expert depth (``sisyf-guide.rst`` line 46) is specified to
  show "All 32 non-stub fields copied verbatim from PoR" --- but no
  expert-depth compiled pages exist yet.

The existing PoR source pages are **proto-expert**, not proto-dump.
They contain most content fields but omit operational, network, and
analytical fields entirely.


4b. TODOs requesting dump/debug pages
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**None found.** No ``TODO`` comments in any ``.rst`` file request dump,
debug, or "show everything" views. The only references to ``dump`` are
in architecture documents (AHA Section 7, SISYF guide) where it is
defined prospectively.


4c. Recommendation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**``dump`` is a theoretical convenience. Keep registered but defer
implementation.**

Rationale:

1. Expert depth already shows 32/45 fields. ``dump`` would add the
   remaining 13 stub fields --- which are currently empty.
2. No user or author has requested a dump view.
3. Until the compilation skill is running and fields are actually
   populated, ``dump`` adds no value beyond ``expert``.
4. The ``dump`` D4 code is correctly registered in the AHA architecture
   and costs nothing to maintain.

**Evidence strength: none.** No demand exists in current content. The
registration is forward-looking and harmless.


----


TEST 5 --- PoR Field #40 Name Collision
==========================================

5a. Usage counts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

- **"model" as D2 element type:** 0 instances. No label of the form
  ``pet-model1`` or ``jub-model*`` exists in any content file.
- **"model" as PoR field name (field #40, "ModelUsedIn"):** 38 references
  across architecture docs, SISYF stubs, and integration findings.
- **Hypothetical examples** (``pet-model1`` in documentation): 6
  instances, all in AHA docs and integration testing prompts.


5b. Actual ambiguity
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**No actual ambiguity exists in current content.** The collision is purely
theoretical:

1. **Grammar-level:** No collision. ``model`` is not a D2 type ID; it
   appears only in D1 position (as the *dimension name*, not a code).
   The hyphen separator prevents parse conflicts.
2. **Field-level:** Minor conceptual overlap. Field #40 is named
   ``model`` (brief) / ``ModelUsedIn`` (full). Context always clarifies.
3. **In practice:** Zero ambiguities encountered during Phase 2I-4
   compilation.
4. **Registry discipline:** Existing rules prevent any new D2 type from
   equaling a D1 model code.


5c. Recommendation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**No action needed. Leave field #40 as-is.**

The collision is semantic (D1 and field #40 both answer "which model?"),
not syntactic. They serve the same concept from different angles:

- D1 appears in labels (``pet-ax5``).
- Field #40 appears in PoR content (``**ModelUsedIn (model):** Pet``).

The two never compete in the same context. Renaming to ``usedby`` or
``inmodel`` would add complexity without preventing any real conflict.

**Evidence strength: strong.** Comprehensive search confirms zero
collisions in 309 ``.rst`` files.


----


TEST 6 --- Cross-Model Objections in HELL
============================================

All 33 contentions in ``hell/con/b/{11..43}/index.rst`` were read and
classified.


6a. Jub-only objections
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**22 of 33 (67%)** target specifically and exclusively Jubilee axioms
(ax15_A15--ax25_A25), theorems (th5_T5--th11_T11), or ResearchCity institutional design.

Examples: Con-A.1 (th8_T8 not theorem), Con-C.4 (Jubilee specificity gap),
Con-E.11 (Jubilee never implemented), Con-C.3.1--C.3.3 (ResearchCity
megaproject/Hayek/power), Con-D.3.4 (bootstrapping paradox).


6b. PET-applicable objections
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**2 of 33 (6%)** are filed under Jub but apply to the PET foundation:

1. **Con-D.6 (jub-con16):** Piketty's r > g contested --- targets the
   empirical evidence base shared by PET and Jub.
2. **Con-E.10 (jub-con20):** Mereological framework limits --- explicitly
   targets ax1_A1--ax4_A4 (PET axioms), critiquing CEM foundations.


6c. Cross-model objections
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**9 of 33 (27%)** apply to the shared foundation rather than any
specific model:

1. **Con-C.2.3 (jub-con27):** Michaelis-Menten credibility (N=1
   epistemology).
2. **Con-C.2.4 (jub-con28):** Fitness analogy breaks (ax19_A19 causal
   influence).
3. **Con-C.2.5 (jub-con29):** 7TrackRole is taxonomy (shared social
   structure).
4. **Con-C.2.6 (jub-con30):** Voluntariness paradox (ax15_A15--ax17_A17 shared
   axioms, game-theoretic barrier).
5. **Con-D.2.7 (jub-con31):** Garbage-collection analogy (Lucas critique
   applies to any announced policy).
6. **Con-D.2.8 (jub-con32):** Pinnacle argument undermines (formal vs.
   intuitive rigor, meta-framework).
7. **Con-D.2.9 (jub-con33):** Domain demarcation fails (D_f/D_free/D_inno
   partition is foundational).
8. **Con-D.3.5 (jub-con41):** Single-paradigm risk (ax24_A24 "Extensible"
   shared concern).
9. **Con-E.3.6 (jub-con42):** Game-theoretic barriers to diplomacy
   (Schelling/Fearon, model-independent).


6d. Recommendation
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

**Keep ``jub-con*`` labels with explicit cross-reference markers. Do not
create ``all-con*`` labels.**

Rationale:

1. 22/33 (67%) are genuinely Jub-specific. Creating a parallel
   ``all-con*`` structure for the remaining 11 would duplicate content
   and create maintenance burden.
2. The 9 cross-model entries already document their internal network
   relationships through explicit reference links.
3. The 2 PET-applicable entries should receive callout notes flagging
   their scope (e.g., "[SHARED --- applies to PET ax1_A1--ax4_A4]") but remain
   under ``jub-con*``.
4. When a future PET disputatio is created, it should *reference* these
   shared contentions, not duplicate them.

**Evidence strength: strong.** All 33 entries classified with clear
rationale.


----


Summary
=========

.. list-table::
   :header-rows: 1
   :widths: 8 35 17 40

   * - Test
     - Question
     - Evidence strength
     - Recommendation
   * - 1
     - D1/D2 validity constraints
     - Strong
     - **Permissive.** Leave grammar open; use registry linter for
       semantic warnings. No PET disputatio needed now.
   * - 2
     - Sub-element chaining depth
     - Weak
     - **Single-field (depth=2).** Only 2/5 cases need depth 3;
       override directive exists. Revisit Phase 3.
   * - 3
     - Alignment class echoes
     - Strong (echoes) / Weak (class size)
     - **Warranted.** 4 confirmed PET-JUB echoes. Declare ``all4e``;
       reserve others. Wait for third model.
   * - 4
     - ``dump`` depth usage
     - None
     - **Defer.** No demand in current content. Expert covers 32/45
       fields. Keep ``dump`` registered but unimplemented.
   * - 5
     - PoR field #40 "model" collision
     - Strong
     - **No action.** Zero actual collisions in 309 files. Semantic
       overlap is acceptable; registry discipline prevents conflict.
   * - 6
     - Cross-model HELL objections
     - Strong
     - **Keep ``jub-con*`` with callouts.** 67% Jub-only, 27%
       cross-model, 6% PET-applicable. Add scope markers; do not
       create ``all-con*`` labels.


----


Disposition
=============

All 5 deferred questions from AHA Section 17.1 are now informed by
empirical data. Three questions (Tests 1, 5, 6) have strong evidence
supporting clear recommendations. Two questions (Tests 2, 4) have weak
or no evidence and should remain deferred until Phase 3 compilation
produces real-world usage data. Test 3 (alignment classes) has strong
evidence for the mechanism but weak evidence for class sizing.

**Action items for Phase 3:**

1. Implement registry linter with D1/D2 semantic warnings (Test 1).
2. Track chaining depth during first large-scale compilation (Test 2).
3. Declare PET-JUB ``all4e`` alignment in D1 registry (Test 3).
4. Monitor demand for ``dump`` depth during compilation (Test 4).
5. Add scope markers ("[SHARED]") to cross-model ``jub-con*`` entries
   (Test 6).


.. admonition:: TELES migration report (2026m04d04)

   Mechanical identifier migration applied to this file.
   All axiom/theorem text references were migrated from short form
   (e.g., A15) to compound form (e.g., ax15_A15) as part of the
   matheology compound naming operation. Both forms refer to the
   same formal object. The old form survives as the suffix to
   ensure consistency with the oldest records; the new form adds
   a temporary-status prefix. Forward-facing pages use brief form
   (ax15) only. See
   :ref:`hell-ll-other-b15-teles-renaming-prompt` for the complete
   mapping table and :ref:`legacy-5d-link-names-table-for-pet-jub-model` for the permanent
   reference.