ATOEVO

Context Repair Lab: Information Lost in Compression

RΛIN / ATO · Research in public · 06 November 2026

Context Repair:
when the question
outgrows the summary.

Eight states. One compressed view. Change the question, find an ambiguity, then test how much information repairs it.

A summary can be sufficient for one task and fail on another. This exact finite example lets you inspect every state and every collision. It gives an exact example of task-dependent sufficiency and repair.

Experiment 07 / Exact enumeration

Ask for what was discarded.

Loading the eight-state model. The construction and proof remain readable below.

Each card is a fibre: states with identical retained information. Gold cards contain conflicting answers; green cards contain one answer. Labels show the distinction without relying on color. Every triple has probability 1/8.

A uniform eight-state model with declared deterministic observation rules. The repair budget is a worst-case fixed-length binary bound with Q known to the decoder. A bound need not be achieved by an arbitrary choice of added coordinates.

Inspect every state
Full stateSummary QAnswer YRepair A

What is being measured?

A missing answer has a cost.

Let X be the full state, Q its retained summary and Y the answer to the newly admitted question. Define the context debt as H(Y | Q), using ordinary conditional entropy in bits. Zero means Y is determined by Q on the stated distribution’s support.

Within each Q-fibre, count the distinct possible answers: kq. An exact repair needs at least ceil(log₂ kq) bits in that fibre, because fewer binary codes cannot distinguish all of its answers. The display reports the maximum across fibres. This counts answers, not necessarily full hidden states.

If a repair A makes H(Y | Q, A) = 0, then H(A | Q) ≥ H(Y | Q). To see why, conditional mutual information gives H(Y | Q) = I(Y; A | Q) ≤ H(A | Q). This is a standard information-theoretic bound, not a newly discovered entropy law.

A single pair with the same Q and different Y is an explicit failure certificate. A successful repair here applies only to these eight states and the selected question; it does not establish general reasoning ability or safety in an untested environment.

Mathematical background: Polyanskiy & Wu, MIT 6.441 lecture notes, chapters on entropy, conditional information and sufficient statistics. The finite enumeration and derivation on this page are inspectable in the model source.

Three tests worth recording.

  1. Keep Q = first bit and Y = last bit. The missing information is one bit. Adding the first bit again cannot help; adding the last bit removes the ambiguity.
  2. Ask for the full triple while retaining only the first bit. Four answers share each fibre: two repair bits are needed. Add b and c and check every row.
  3. Retain parity and ask for parity, then change the question to the full triple. A sufficient summary becomes insufficient without any change to the underlying states.

Make a prediction and keep the comparison →

Next research test

Take the witness into real records.

To apply this demonstration to real research, publish a dataset, its compression rule, the questions it must answer, collision witnesses and the cost of each repair. The eight-state model alone does not establish an empirical result.

What a ratio hides

Compare the finite example with magnitude lost under a projective summary.

Open Golden Scale →