Initial Commit

experiments/004_invariant_rooms/hypothesis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# Experiment 004 Hypothesis — Private Until After Play
+
+## Why this follows Experiment 003
+
+Experiment 003 removed indirect automation but still reduced to obvious counter-loadouts. Its lattice rarely changed outcomes. The player nevertheless invented a two-tractor workaround while misunderstanding the heat system and still found the experience boring. This is important: deviation and problem solving are not equivalent to curiosity or fun.
+
+Experiment 004 removes construction, upgrades, combat pressure, continuous steering, and numerical optimization. It isolates whether an unfamiliar but stable law can produce a valued cycle of observation, inference, prediction, and transfer.
+
+## Mechanic
+
+One command affects two bodies:
+
+- Self moves in the requested cardinal direction.
+- Echo moves in the exact opposite direction.
+- A wall blocks each body independently.
+- Therefore ordinary moves preserve their midpoint, while an asymmetric collision changes it. Walls can absorb one half of a command and let the player ratchet the pair into configurations impossible in open space.
+
+The interface does not state this law. It makes it legible through simultaneous tweened motion, trails, collision flashes, a connecting line, a midpoint marker, and a terse record of the last displacement. The player can undo or reset instantly.
+
+## Room Sequence
+
+1. **First Pair:** an open horizontal arrangement. Two left commands solve it and expose opposed motion.
+2. **One Holds:** one body begins against a wall while the other must move three cells. This isolates independent blocking.
+3. **Transfer:** asymmetric internal walls require combining ordinary opposed moves with two different wall absorptions. The shortest unordered solution is `UUUUURRDR` (9 commands), verified by breadth-first search.
+4. **Open Chamber:** no sockets and no completion condition. It exists only to observe whether the player has a question or prediction they want to test after the authored sequence.
+
+## Competing Interpretations
+
+1. Inferring a stable unfamiliar law is intrinsically rewarding and produces a second question.
+2. The reveal is momentarily interesting but becomes a short authored puzzle with no continuing possibility space.
+3. The player enjoys spatial puzzle solving but not open experimentation.
+4. The law is learned but applying it feels like laborious state bookkeeping.
+5. The visualization is insufficient, so success comes from input search rather than a usable mental model.
+6. The tasks are too easy or too short to expose the difference between satisfaction and compliance.
+
+## Evidence Priorities
+
+Strong evidence for the target loop:
+
+- a prediction stated or behaviorally tested before a required move;
+- deliberate use of a wall after first observing asymmetric blocking;
+- low-search transfer in the final room after exploratory earlier rooms;
+- movement in the open chamber aimed at a self-chosen configuration;
+- a concrete question about a consequence not required by sockets;
+- wanting another situation because of the law rather than merely another puzzle.
+
+Ambiguous evidence:
+
+- completion;
+- resets or many moves;
+- finding an unintended route;
+- spending time in a room;
+- any claim that the mechanic would or would not be fun with more content.
+
+Negative evidence:
+
+- immediate mechanical input search without model formation;
+- stopping as soon as sockets are filled with no desire to predict anything else;
+- describing the law as understood but exhausted;
+- finding state planning tedious even after the behavior is clear.
+
+## Instrumentation
+
+Log every command with before/after coordinates, requested direction, each body's displacement and blocked state, midpoint before/after, move count, undo depth, and completion state. Also log resets, undos, room entry/completion, time and move totals, open-chamber moves, visibility changes, and saves.
+
+Telemetry cannot distinguish thoughtful prediction from trial-and-error by itself. Pair it with the player's report and inspect pauses, undo patterns, and whether wall interactions become more intentional over time.
+
+## Questions After Play
+
+Ask only after receiving the JSONL:
+
+1. At what point, if any, did you feel you understood what the paired movement and walls would do before pressing a key?
+2. In the last required room, were you executing a plan, testing local guesses, or searching inputs until something worked?
+3. Once the required sequence ended, did you have any result you wanted to produce or any question you wanted answered?
+
+Do not ask whether “discovering rules” is fun; that wording would encourage agreement with the hypothesis.