Add request-acceptance gold experiment

docs/experiments.md

@@ -1680,6 +1680,73 @@ does not generalize the derivation architecture to other cases or semantic
 categories. No production integration, other case run, semantic graph,
 protocol derivation or Progeo run occurred.
 
+## EXP-0032 — Request / Acceptance Gold V0
+
+Status: Experimental; promising with semantic precision gaps
+
+Date: 2026-08-20
+
+This isolated regression experiment tested whether the EXP-0031 mechanism
+generalizes beyond H. It used ten short synthetic cases containing only
+V3-style observations. Evidence Observation V3 was neither called nor changed,
+and the model received no raw transcript or expected result. The fixed
+recognition schema permits only a nullable concrete request and nullable later
+explicit personal commitment, plus the same-requested-work judgment and
+normalized action text. Responsibility, requested actor, established status,
+Action Item, protocol, confidence and generic graph fields remain forbidden.
+
+Cases:
+
+- RA-01 explicit positive acceptance: PASS.
+- RA-02 paraphrased positive acceptance: PASS.
+- RA-03 acknowledgement only: PASS.
+- RA-04 tentative response: PASS.
+- RA-05 different responder without personal acceptance: PASS.
+- RA-06 explicit commitment to different work: PARTIAL. The model returned no
+  acceptance instead of recognizing a commitment with `same_requested_work`
+  false. The requested action correctly remained unestablished.
+- RA-07 request without response: PASS.
+- RA-08 collective commitment: PARTIAL. The model over-recognized the
+  collective `wir` statement as an explicit commitment, but no request existed
+  and deterministic gates prevented individual responsibility.
+- RA-09 impersonal necessity: PARTIAL. The model over-recognized the impersonal
+  necessity as a concrete request, but the observation had no addressee and
+  deterministic gates prevented establishment.
+- RA-10 tentative personal suggestion: PASS.
+
+Configuration: exactly ten sequential `qwen3.5:9B` calls, one per case,
+temperature 0, `think=false`, `num_ctx=16384`, `num_predict=1024`, no retries,
+no voting and no prompt change between cases. Summed call time was 23.754
+seconds, with 4,826 prompt-evaluation tokens and 793 evaluation tokens. The
+strict schema validated every response and no responsibility or establishment
+field leaked into model output.
+
+Both positive cases recognized the request, explicit commitment and same-work
+relationship, including the paraphrased acceptance, and deterministically
+established Clara as responsible with due date `Dienstag`. The model rendered
+the normalized action in semantically equivalent English; evaluation therefore
+checks the structural deterministic result exactly while treating normalized
+action wording as evidence-near semantic text rather than requiring lexical
+identity. Acknowledgement and tentative response were not promoted. Every
+negative case remained unestablished, and no individual responsibility was
+invented.
+
+Recognition-level errors were two false positives (RA-08 commitment and RA-09
+request) and one false negative (RA-06 different-work commitment). Final
+established-action false positives and false negatives were both zero. The
+overall result was seven PASS, three PARTIAL and zero FAIL.
+
+Conclusion: the narrow request-plus-acceptance architecture remains promising
+for established individual actions because deterministic addressee, ordering,
+speaker, same-work, provenance and deadline gates contained all recognition
+errors. The recognition layer is not yet precise enough to generalize: its
+handling of collective commitment, impersonal necessity and commitments to
+different work needs further isolated study. No production integration or
+additional semantic category is justified by this result.
+
+Artifacts are preserved under
+`artifacts/experiments/request_acceptance_gold_v0/20260820_qwen35_9b_single_run/`.
+
 ## EXP-0026 — Topic-oriented Discussion Subject reconstruction V2 prototype
 
 Date: 2026-08-11