{"results":[{"id":"dual-path-architecture","text":"Dual-path retrieval: TMS path (pre-computed beliefs) + FTS path (source chunk search), merged by a third pass. This is how EEM is queried at scale. Each path stays within cognitive budget","truth_value":"IN","justification_count":2,"dependent_count":0,"challenges":[],"last_reviewed":"2026-05-30T07:02:40","review_result":"pass","source_type":""},{"id":"dual-path-design-evidence","text":"Dual-path retrieval (TMS path for pre-computed beliefs + FTS path for source chunk search, merged by a third pass) achieves 98.5% A/B across 3,853 questions. Opus drops from 95.5% to 86% when mixing beliefs and document chunks in a single prompt; three focused passes achieve 100%.","truth_value":"IN","justification_count":0,"dependent_count":1,"challenges":[],"last_reviewed":null,"review_result":null,"source_type":""},{"id":"evidence-dual-path","text":"Opus + dual-path architecture achieves 98.5% A/B across 3,853 questions. Zero D/F grades — eliminated the failure tail entirely","truth_value":"IN","justification_count":0,"dependent_count":1,"challenges":[],"last_reviewed":null,"review_result":null,"source_type":""},{"id":"evidence-model-compensation","text":"EEM compensates for model size: Sonnet+beliefs approximates Opus without beliefs. Haiku with dual-path achieves 94% A+B, matching Opus at 98%","truth_value":"IN","justification_count":0,"dependent_count":1,"challenges":[],"last_reviewed":null,"review_result":null,"source_type":""},{"id":"llm-generation-capability","text":"LLMs are strong generators: they produce fluent, contextually relevant, often correct text across domains. The 88% A-grade with EEM, 98.5% dual-path, and consistent ~155 derivations per 10-round cycle across 6 domains demonstrate generation capability. The problem is reliability, not capability — 13-38% of derivations fail review.","truth_value":"IN","justification_count":0,"dependent_count":1,"challenges":[],"last_reviewed":null,"review_result":null,"source_type":""},{"id":"self-referential-evidence","text":"The EEM evidence base is currently self-referential: all experimental results (98.5% dual-path, 88% vs 33% expert-vs-baseline, confidence r-values) are sourced from the same project's internal entries. The belief registry demonstrating itself on its own claims is circular — structure and provenance tracking work, but the underlying numbers lack independent verification","truth_value":"IN","justification_count":0,"dependent_count":3,"challenges":[],"last_reviewed":null,"review_result":null,"source_type":""}],"count":6,"limit":20,"offset":0}