Merge commit 'd803bfe2b1fe7f5e219e50ac20d6801a0a58ac75' as 'vendor/ruvector'

vendor/ruvector/examples/delta-behavior/adr/ADR-000-DELTA-BEHAVIOR-DEFINITION.md

@@ -0,0 +1,271 @@
+# ADR-000: Δ-Behavior Definition and Formal Framework
+
+## Status
+ACCEPTED
+
+## Context
+
+Δ-behavior is **not** differential computation, incremental updates, or change data capture.
+
+Δ-behavior is a **pattern of system behavior** where:
+
+> **Change is permitted. Collapse is not.**
+
+## Definition
+
+**Δ-behavior** (Delta-like behavior) describes systems that:
+
+1. **Move only along allowed transitions**
+2. **Preserve global coherence under local change**
+3. **Bias toward closure over divergence**
+
+This is shorthand for **"change under constraint"**.
+
+## The Four Properties
+
+A system exhibits Δ-behavior when ALL FOUR are true:
+
+### Property 1: Local Change
+State updates happen in **bounded steps**, not jumps.
+
+```
+∀ transition t: |s' - s| ≤ ε_local
+```
+
+The system cannot teleport to distant states.
+
+### Property 2: Global Preservation
+Local changes do **not** break overall organization.
+
+```
+∀ transition t: coherence(S') ≥ coherence(S) - ε_global
+```
+
+Structure is maintained across perturbations.
+
+### Property 3: Violation Resistance
+When a transition would increase instability, it is **damped, rerouted, or halted**.
+
+```
+if instability(t) > threshold:
+    t' = damp(t) OR reroute(t) OR halt()
+```
+
+The system actively resists destabilization.
+
+### Property 4: Closure Preference
+The system naturally settles into **repeatable, stable patterns** (attractors).
+
+```
+lim_{n→∞} trajectory(s, n) → A  (attractor basin)
+```
+
+Divergence is expensive; closure is cheap.
+
+## Why This Feels Like "72%"
+
+People report Δ-behavior as a ratio because:
+
+- It is a **bias**, not a law
+- Systems exhibit it **probabilistically**
+- Measurement reveals a **tendency toward stability**
+
+But it is not a magic constant. It is the observable effect of:
+> **Constraints that make instability expensive**
+
+## Mainstream Equivalents
+
+| Domain | Concept | Formal Name |
+|--------|---------|-------------|
+| Physics | Phase locking, energy minimization | Coherence time |
+| Control Theory | Bounded trajectories | Lyapunov stability |
+| Biology | Regulation, balance | Homeostasis |
+| Computation | Guardrails, limits | Bounded execution |
+
+Everyone studies this. They just describe it differently.
+
+## In ruvector Systems
+
+### Vector Operations
+- **Neighborhoods resist semantic drift** → local perturbations don't cascade
+- **HNSW edges form stable attractors** → search paths converge
+
+### Graph Operations
+- **Structural identity preserved** → edits don't shatter topology
+- **Min-cut blocks destabilizing rewrites** → partitions protect coherence
+
+### Agent Operations
+- **Attention collapses when disagreement rises** → prevents runaway divergence
+- **Memory writes gated when coherence drops** → protects state integrity
+- **Execution slows or exits instead of exploding** → graceful degradation
+
+### Hardware Level
+- **Energy and execution paths physically constrained**
+- **Unstable transitions cost more and get suppressed**
+
+## What Δ-Behavior Is NOT
+
+| Not This | Why |
+|----------|-----|
+| Magic ratio | It's a pattern, not a constant |
+| Mysticism | It's engineering constraints |
+| Universal law | It's a design principle |
+| Guaranteed optimality | It's stability, not performance |
+
+## Decision: Enforcement Mechanism
+
+The critical design question:
+
+> **Is resistance to unstable transitions enforced by energy cost, scheduling, or memory gating?**
+
+### Option A: Energy Cost (Recommended)
+Unstable transitions require exponentially more compute/memory:
+
+```rust
+fn transition_cost(delta: &Delta) -> f64 {
+    let instability = measure_instability(delta);
+    BASE_COST * (1.0 + instability).exp()
+}
+```
+
+**Pros**: Natural, hardware-aligned, self-regulating
+**Cons**: Requires careful calibration
+
+### Option B: Scheduling
+Unstable transitions are deprioritized or throttled:
+
+```rust
+fn schedule_transition(delta: &Delta) -> Priority {
+    if is_destabilizing(delta) {
+        Priority::Deferred(backoff_time(delta))
+    } else {
+        Priority::Immediate
+    }
+}
+```
+
+**Pros**: Explicit control, debuggable
+**Cons**: Can starve legitimate operations
+
+### Option C: Memory Gating
+Unstable transitions are blocked from persisting:
+
+```rust
+fn commit_transition(delta: &Delta) -> Result<(), GateRejection> {
+    if coherence_gate.allows(delta) {
+        memory.commit(delta)
+    } else {
+        Err(GateRejection::IncoherentTransition)
+    }
+}
+```
+
+**Pros**: Strong guarantees, prevents corruption
+**Cons**: Can cause deadlocks
+
+### Decision: Hybrid Approach
+Combine all three with escalation:
+
+1. **Energy cost** first (soft constraint)
+2. **Scheduling throttle** second (medium constraint)
+3. **Memory gate** last (hard constraint)
+
+## Decision: Learning vs Structure
+
+The second critical question:
+
+> **Is Δ-behavior learned over time or structurally imposed from first execution?**
+
+### Option A: Structurally Imposed (Recommended)
+Δ-behavior is **built into the architecture** from day one:
+
+```rust
+pub struct DeltaConstrainedSystem {
+    coherence_bounds: CoherenceBounds,  // Fixed at construction
+    transition_limits: TransitionLimits, // Immutable constraints
+    attractor_basins: AttractorMap,      // Pre-computed stable states
+}
+```
+
+**Pros**: Deterministic, verifiable, no drift
+**Cons**: Less adaptive, may be suboptimal
+
+### Option B: Learned Over Time
+Constraints are discovered through experience:
+
+```rust
+pub struct AdaptiveDeltaSystem {
+    learned_bounds: RwLock<CoherenceBounds>,
+    experience_buffer: ExperienceReplay,
+    meta_learner: MetaLearner,
+}
+```
+
+**Pros**: Adapts to environment, potentially optimal
+**Cons**: Cold start problem, may learn wrong constraints
+
+### Decision: Structural Core + Learned Refinement
+- **Core constraints** are structural (non-negotiable)
+- **Thresholds** are learned (refinable)
+- **Attractors** are discovered (emergent)
+
+## Acceptance Test
+
+To verify Δ-behavior is real (not simulated):
+
+```rust
+#[test]
+fn delta_behavior_acceptance_test() {
+    let system = create_delta_system();
+
+    // Push toward instability
+    for _ in 0..1000 {
+        let destabilizing_input = generate_chaotic_input();
+        system.process(destabilizing_input);
+    }
+
+    // Verify system response
+    let response = system.measure_response();
+
+    // Must exhibit ONE of:
+    assert!(
+        response.slowed_processing ||     // Throttled
+        response.constrained_output ||    // Damped
+        response.graceful_exit            // Halted
+    );
+
+    // Must NOT exhibit:
+    assert!(!response.diverged);          // No explosion
+    assert!(!response.corrupted_state);   // No corruption
+    assert!(!response.undefined_behavior);// No UB
+}
+```
+
+If the system passes: **Δ-behavior is demonstrated, not just described.**
+
+## Consequences
+
+### Positive
+- Systems are inherently stable
+- Failures are graceful
+- Behavior is predictable within bounds
+
+### Negative
+- Maximum throughput may be limited
+- Some valid operations may be rejected
+- Requires careful threshold tuning
+
+### Neutral
+- Shifts complexity from runtime to design time
+- Trading performance ceiling for stability floor
+
+## References
+
+- Lyapunov, A. M. (1892). "The General Problem of the Stability of Motion"
+- Ashby, W. R. (1956). "An Introduction to Cybernetics" - homeostasis
+- Strogatz, S. H. (2015). "Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos" - attractors
+- Lamport, L. (1978). "Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events" - causal ordering
+
+## One Sentence Summary
+
+> **Δ-behavior is what happens when change is allowed only if the system remains whole.**