Part III. Practical Implementation
The Macro-Design Loop
Macro Dominates Micro
Micro optimization-improving weights, architectures, training procedures-is necessary but insufficient. Macro design-orchestrating feedback loops that recursively refine problem definitions and solution methods-enables more unbounded growth that follows the path of evolution more closely.
Thermodynamic advantage lies at the macro level, where architectural choices determine whether energy costs sum or multiply.
The Essential Loop
Observable problem: Initial, often ill-defined challenge.
Modeling fidelity: Capture problem structure in measurable form.
Measurement in model: Test solutions within the modelled environment.
Application: Deploy to the real problem, observe performance.
Drift detection: Identify where model assumptions fail.
Re-specification: Refine problem definition based on drift patterns.
The loop exhibits recursive properties: each iteration improves both problem definition and solution capacity. Problem definition and problem solving are two sides of the same coin.
Model training searches for representations to solve verifiable problems. Problem definition discovery searches for what the real problem structure actually is in its solvable form. These are causally bidirectional: problem definition drives the need for model improvements, while the model's representation shapes how problems can be formulated.
Drift in measurement is a signal revealing which dimensions were incorrectly specified or omitted.
Every pass through the loop also refreshes the arc-cohort ledger. When measurements show the entry contract drifting out of tolerance for a cohort, orchestration either routes around the arc, launches exploration to tighten the contract, or spawns a variant arc tuned to the new statistics. The macro loop, therefore, governs both the catalog of primitives and the policies that decide when to enter them. Each iteration can also refine the blueprint itself, replaying raw logs so the sufficient statistics powering causal inference stay aligned with reality.
Measurement-Centered Experimental Design
The next generation of AI systems should place measurement at the true center, not as an afterthought for evaluation, but as the organizing principle enabling systematic exploration of the problem space.
Building on the freeze-variable concept introduced earlier, we can design experiments that systematically explore the configuration space. The macro-design loop becomes an experimental platform where we apply the same principles-freezing some dimensions while varying others-to understand not just which primitives work, but under what conditions and in what combinations. This gives us data revealing which variables matter and how they interact.
Each experiment stakes new survey markers along the terrain: we learn which routes stay smooth under perturbation, which fracture the moment the population shifts, and where the unsurveyed ravines lie. Over time, exploration carves trails that, once proven, are widened into the durable roads described earlier.
One byproduct is a continually improving map of arc effectiveness across cohorts. By freezing some variables and varying others, we obtain the conditional response curves that decide whether an arc's contract holds, needs refinement, or should be decomposed.
Because validated modules expose stable contracts, we can instrument them as abstract levers in subsequent experiments. Higher-level designs treat entire subsystems as single variables-another dimension in the blueprint-while relying on the lower-level measurements that certified the abstraction. This recursive structure keeps exploration manageable even as systems stack on top of one another.
Risk-Calibrated Simulation and Distributed Exploration
Problem modeling is never about enumerating every branch; it is about covering the branches that make sense under the domain's risk profile and resource budget. Designing a surgical workflow does not demand that we model simultaneous failure of primary and backup surgeons. It does require that we play through dropped scalpels, anaesthesia drift, or sensor faults. Sufficiency in exploration is therefore defined by the combination of acceptable residual risk and affordable search effort.
To reach that sufficiency, we run distributed search. Local workers-generalist logicians with access to the current sufficient statistics-branch into scenario variants and propose the next actions they can take inside those variants. A global orchestrator sits above them like a helicopter over an island, assigning sectors, reprioritizing coverage, and pruning redundant expeditions. The orchestrator's job is to spread the workers across the possibility space in proportion to risk-weighted value while preventing overlap during their greedy exploration. Its guidance also respects the arc-cohort ledger: workers only enter arcs whose contracts are validated for the synthesized statistics of their scenario.
There are two complementary testing regimes. Unbiased exploration treats the solver as a black box and focuses on representative coverage of the domain. The orchestrator allocates workers to ensure that the distribution of explored branches mirrors the domain's hazard profile. Biased exploration exploits internal knowledge of the solver to stress likely failure trajectories. Here the orchestrator densifies sampling around the solver's favorite heuristics, presenting candidate next steps that are calibrated to how the solver actually behaves. Both regimes feed back into measurement: unbiased sweeps confirm that the patient-feature blueprint is not missing obvious physiological or operational phenomena, while biased probes expose thin spots in the solver's defensive armour.
As cohorts accumulate their episodic clusters, the population analysis reports whether exploration has reached sufficiency. If certain risk-weighted regions remain under-sampled, the orchestrator launches new worker waves or rebalances budgets until coverage meets the target. When the blueprint itself shifts-new dimensions added, buckets redefined-the whole exploration archive is replayed under the updated synthesis so that our safety claims remain anchored in the latest causal understanding.
Dynamic loading keeps this tractable. Instead of materializing the entire problem space, the orchestrator manages neighborhoods. Workers request boundary segments when their scenario reaches the edge of the loaded region; orchestrators either extend the neighborhood, hand the worker off to a peer responsible for the adjacent domain, or deliberately clamp the exploration if the remaining branches fall below the risk threshold. This boundary-handling protocol prevents redundant simulation of low-value regions while still guaranteeing that high-risk boundary effects are exercised. It also keeps the ledger honest: whenever new territory is loaded, the sufficient statistics and arc contracts for that neighborhood must be regenerated or confirmed before workers proceed.
Design Principles for Compositional Systems
Models as Smarter Search, Not Direct Solution Providers
Foundation models can make genetic-style search algorithms more potent than their classic versions from decades ago. They should be used to do things such as propose hypotheses, prune search trees, and compress noise so that entropy stratification stays under control while variance is preserved where we need learning signal.
Entropy Stratification: Controlled Freedom Under Risk
In high-risk contexts, optimal policy entropy decreases toward the minimum achievable given constraints, aiming for low entropy without necessarily achieving determinism. In low-risk exploration, entropy remains high to achieve information gain.
Contract-Driven Orchestration
Composition only scales safely when orchestration treats each arc as a guarded transition. The safeguards enumerated earlier define valid entries, exits, and audits. Implementation-wise the orchestration layer keeps the cohort-indexed ledger current, refreshing sufficient statistics whenever blueprints shift and treating ledger gaps as prompts for targeted exploration rather than interpolation. It enforces entry predicates and watches exit variance in real time, aborting or branching to diagnostics when the state drifts outside the validated domain. Finally, it coordinates distributed worker pools and promotes modules only after replay-backed audits certify that higher-level abstractions remain trustworthy.
These mechanisms keep high-risk deployments on the subset of arcs with proven causal support while still leaving ample room to explore new compositions under controlled entropy.
Conclusion
Key principles include:
Replace monolithic RL rewards with measurement-backed credit assignment that scores reusable quantized arcs and the compositions they enable.
Keep the cognitive core lean while layering domain knowledge through contract-bound primitives projected by refreshed sufficient statistics, so compressed general knowledge never overrides the measured cohort facts.
Treat measurement, replay, and cohort analysis as core infrastructure: retain raw traces, regenerate statistics under new blueprints, and refuse to run arcs without current contracts.
Actively search for structural equivalence classes-primitives that impose the same guardrails and effect signatures across cohorts-and codify the validated abstractions by updating the blueprint and auditing them with targeted measurements.
Maintain the proven road network of trajectories: instrument the dependable routes, refresh their evidence, and invest exploration budgets at the frontier where new roads are still being surveyed.
Run distributed exploration under a global orchestrator so unbiased coverage, adversarial probes, and module promotion all track the domain's true risk profile.
These practices align the intelligence search dynamic with the compositional interaction structures that ultimately create outcomes. They also respect the physical limits that make monolithic scaling an unsustainable path once risk and precision requirements mount.
Last updated
Was this helpful?