sillsdev/motif/parsimony-review

Review Motif Parsimony findings

A Parsimony finding is an advisory reason to review one part of a grammar. Keep the finding's evidence, its limits, and the linguist's decision connected throughout the review.

Read the evidence

1. Open the exact Parsimony Report with motif_parsimony_report, passing the selected project and

its report_id. Confirm its Baseline, evidence artifacts, Assessment references, measure, and finding identity.

1. Read the recipe for the measure from motif://parsimony/recipes/<measureId>. The recipe names

supported semantic actions, verification criteria, and known limits.

1. Use motif_parsimony_view with the Report's exact bundle_id and a fixed view. For parser

findings, inspect the named parser-cases; confirm that each case completed and its morph identities are available. An incomplete, missing, or unattributable case is not proof of an empty result.

1. Keep restrictiveness and parsimony as separate axes. Within the same evidence tier, consider

restrictiveness before parsimony. Do not combine them into a score.

Choose a route

• Fix: only use an update action named by the recipe and available as a typed semantic composer.

Start a Draft with motif_start_proposal, stage the named operation, then run motif_dry_run and motif_trial when the recipe calls for them. Read the Trial summary and page through its Difference with motif_difference. Check every stated Approved reading, negative, control, and completeness condition. Keep the update and its fix disposition bound to the finding's evidence. A person decides whether to Apply.

• Keep: use when the evidence supports the current grammar, such as a productive extension or an

intentional fallback. Record the specific reason and evidence; do not edit the grammar.

• Ask: state one answerable question that would distinguish the supported routes. Include the

exact evidence and the relevant Approved readings; do not edit the grammar.

• Defer: use when attribution, identity, or an update capability is missing, or when a parser case

stays incomplete after a rerun. Name the missing evidence or action and do not invent a substitute.

An incomplete parser case is missing evidence, not a decision. First rerun the same words with motif_assess and a longer perWordLimitMs; defer only if a case is still incomplete.

Stage a decision with motif_dispose_parsimony_finding or the typed motif_record_parsimony_disposition tool. ask requires a question. Run motif_dry_run on the Draft and motif_trial when the recipe requires parser checks. Finalize only when the Draft is ready for a person to review. A pending disposition does not suppress a live finding; it takes effect after a person Applies the Proposal and Motif later refreshes the project.

Boundaries

• Do not use arbitrary SQL, raw property writes, or a generated LibLCM Mutation Plan as canonical

input. Use the recipe's semantic composer.

• Do not Apply, even when the linguist says you need not ask again. Stage the Proposal and leave Apply

to a person; the caller owns project persistence and lifecycle.

• Do not claim that a parser-incomplete case was rejected or that a single successful fixture proves

whole-grammar equivalence.

• If the recipe lists no update action, explain that limitation and ask or defer. Do not promise an

unsupported fix.

• If Motif tools are missing, tell the person to turn on Advanced AI mode in Motif. Do not edit the

project by another route.