Proposed specificationSource-located exemplarH2 H3

Regularized harness improvement

Limit overfitting during repeated edits.

JOIN POINTrepeated_acceptance_decisionRECORD STATUSCandidate · v0.1.0

UML class view

The proposed contract drawn as participant roles, received calls, and numbered dependencies.

Object interactions

The same roles and calls as a class collaboration and a numbered message sequence.

Object interaction diagram for Regularized harness improvement, showing role collaboration and a numbered message sequence — FIG. E03 / OBJECT INTERACTIONS
Open full SVG Download PDF

Pointcut

Where the mechanism applies. All four dimensions belong to the proposed match, not just its vocabulary.

Context: Multiple harness edits are proposed over repeated rounds.
Trigger: An evaluator accepts or rejects an edit.
Structure: Validation split, regularization signal, edit budget, and final holdout.
Effect: Selection controls complexity and overfitting before final evaluation.

Protected contract

The obligation that clients, operators, and auditors should be able to rely on.

Requires: Acceptance and final evaluation data have distinct roles.
Ensures: Accepted edits include the screening evidence that justified them.
Invariant: Final holdout is not used for iterative selection.
Violation: Leakage or unstable gain stops acceptance or downgrades the claim.

Negative control

Best-of-many tuning on the test metric is not regularized improvement.

Variation & lifecycle

The hot spot is admitted only where the protected semantics survive.

Permitted variation

Holdout, critic, complexity penalty, edit budget, and pruning.

Test obligation

Test leakage detection, repeated selection, complexity penalty, and holdout.

Evolution question

Did selection add untouched evaluation and complexity controls?

Prompt + code design

An illustrative prompt and a small design sketch for the proposed contract. Names and APIs are invented; this is not a repository excerpt.

PROMPT SKETCH

Screen every candidate edit on separate acceptance data before it reaches final evaluation. Accepted edits must carry the screening evidence that justified them.

CODE DESIGN / PYTHON

def accept(candidate, screen, holdout):
    screening = screen.evaluate(candidate)
    if not screening.passed:
        return Rejected(candidate, screening)
    final = holdout.evaluate(candidate)
    return Accepted(
        candidate,
        screening=screening,
        final=final,
    ) if final.passed else Rejected(candidate, final)

Illustrative design sketch. Final evaluation is not a second screening set; keep the roles distinct. This example is a teaching aid, not implementation evidence or a conformance claim.

Detection & matching

The frozen rule that retrieves this record, the canonical source exemplar, and the control that should stay unmatched.

Join point: repeated_acceptance_decision
Source locator: See the source record.
Lexical cue: (?i)\b(?:regulariz(?:e|ed|ation)|overfit|hold[_-]?out|validation[_-]?suite)\bFrozen expression, v0.1.0. A match is a retrieval cue, not a confirmed implementation.
Aliases: None
Canonical exemplar: google-research/rrsirrsi/critic.py:28Support: tests/test_core.py:128
Negative control: Best-of-many tuning on the test metric is not regularized improvement.

Scope-anchored review. pohe-agent analyze <repo> --pattern E03 anchors the cue to its enclosing declaration and checks a separate operational signature for all four pointcut dimensions. Missing roles and negative-control risks remain visible; a structural match is not E2/E3. Calibration report ↗

Repository files

Up to five public files retrieved by the frozen cue and pinned to the audited commit. A match is a place to inspect, not a confirmed implementation.

01google-research/rrsirrsi/critic.py:28CANONICAL SOURCE 02bytedance/deer-flowbackend/scripts/eval_memory_prescreen.py:69RETRIEVAL CUE 03Darwin-Agent/HarnessXextensions/skills/skill-creator/scripts/generate_report.py:19RETRIEVAL CUE 04mingju-c/HarnessForgeLlamaFactory/src/llamafactory/data/mm_plugin.py:258RETRIEVAL CUE 05aaif-goose/goosedocumentation/blog/2025-08-04-mcp-jupyter-server/index.md:73RETRIEVAL CUE

Evidence & provenance

Each layer answers a different question. Do not substitute retrieval for review.

Source-located exemplar

A concrete source anchor is available for this proposed record. It is one exemplar, not evidence that all repositories—or every contract field—conform.

Review boundary: this candidate and its specification come from an AI-assisted study. Independent human validation remains open.

ANY-EVIDENCE FAMILY COVERAGE12/36

33.3% of repository families in the frozen panel have at least one current cue, historical cue, or canonical source layer. This is not confirmed prevalence.

Current lexical-cue repositories: 12 / 41

Canonical source anchorgoogle-research/rrsi be50316e1db0rrsi/critic.py:28

Supporting surfacetests/test_core.py:128

Critic screens leakage and overfit edits; history prunes low-yield components.

Exploratory retrieval cue Regex / v0.1.0

This expression is a discovery instrument only. A match is a retrieval cue—not a confirmed implementation, pointcut match, or contract proof.