R4 forward model

Authored design — 2026-09-15. Section 3. This cascade elaborates the existing checklist item. It is not a dispatch, implementation receipt or completion verdict. Work outside WM-01–14 still requires Joe’s explicit greenlight; having a cascade is necessary but not permission.

Section 3/4 index · Exact TODO · Cascade JSON

Situation and design problem

A channel forecast and a cascade prediction can coexist while only the former influences choice. R4 requires the actual interpreted cascade to travel through the admitted shared model.

Governing checklist snapshot

R4 forward model. PARTIAL: WM-03–WM-05 on the actual cascade path, with shared dynamics. Built evidence: Channel predictor and separate machine predictor modules

This is the checklist’s dated evidence account, not a new deployment census. Existing source/test evidence keeps its bounded credit. The acceptance obligation above governs this design.

Pattern applications

R4-1 — Bind the modeled question

Pattern: wm-prediction/outcome-meaning-across-models

Use WM-02/04/05 to declare state, observation and outcome meaning at each horizon step. Produce one model/policy input envelope; a signature-compatible constant bridge is not semantic correspondence.

R4-2 — Resolve the interpreted dynamics

Pattern: wm-connected-learning/same-interpretation-predicted-and-enacted

Use WM-03’s real guards, history, order and full policy plan. Produce controlled transition inputs with measured-versus-declared provenance. Reject unhandled live actions rather than silently dropping them.

R4-3 — Compute complete predictions

Pattern: wm-prediction/outcome-meaning-across-models

Pass the resolved plan and actual belief through B and A over the declared schedule. Retain each step and model revision. The unused standalone machine predictor cannot stand in for the production consumer.

R4-4 — Compare forecast with enactment

Pattern: wm-connected-learning/same-interpretation-predicted-and-enacted

Retain the selected prediction, enacted interpretation and independent later observation. Diagnose guard/history/model mismatches at their source and preserve earlier predictions rather than rewriting them after execution.

Composition and interfaces

Each node’s stated artifact is the input or constraint for the related node below. These are design dependencies, not a claim that a runtime scheduler automatically fires patterns. Existing WM producers are reused through the linked contracts; no second implementation is implied.

Retain the actual subject, source/model revision, task/occurrence, cutoff, producer and consumer for each interface. A missing field is a named gap; a default that changes the meaning is not an adapter. Reuse existing records where they satisfy these obligations. If a new component is indispensable, identify its exact TODO/cascade clause before seeking a separately bounded implementation instruction.

Worked situation

Two patterns have the same precedence but one executor allows repeats and the predictor fires once. A handoff guard deliberately left true exposes this difference. Matching pattern IDs do not rescue the predicted trajectory.

This is a distinguishing design example, not a claimed production experiment.

Implementation sequence and closure evidence

1. Bind the first application to the actual source, task and authority. Resolve the decisions below before their dependent change; do not reproduce a known gap merely to claim activity.
2. Implement only the specifically dispatched producer/consumer change from the middle applications. Retain the meaningful pre-change failure and relevant post-change controls; do not start a general infrastructure project.
3. Acquire the final application’s evidence and independent review. Compare it against every clause of the exact TODO, identifying any still-open dependency. Source, tests, serving state, ordinary use and whole-run validation receive different credit.

Distinguishing controls: Reject missing policy members, source-revision swaps and mixed domains; exercise persistent guards, nonfiring transitions and a valid full-policy computation.

Closure rule: every part of the quoted obligation must be supported by the indicated artifacts and actual connections. A useful rejection proves the rejecting boundary only. One accepted subclause does not tick the whole item. A bellback must supply the exact reviewed subject, executed checks, independent verdict and remaining clauses.

Dependencies and authority boundaries

WM-02 · WM-03 · WM-04 · WM-05 · R16

Reuse WM-03–05 producers; this node adds connection evidence, not another parallel predictor.

Dependency links describe required interfaces; they do not authorize work on those items. No implementation outside the existing TODO list is approved. Publication does not select a numerical law, settle an unresolved operator ruling or authorize a run.

Pattern and source scope

All seeded patterns are applied above. The JSON pins their source bytes and the governing checklist/rulings. Historical formulas, thresholds and examples in a pattern remain scoped examples unless the governing contract adopts them. This draft adds no pattern-library entries and claims no independent semantic ratification.