TriadicFrameworks
Visão geral

🧪 RTT Operator Lab — Instructor Edition

With Grading Notes, Expected Outputs, and Instructor‑Mode Guidance#

TriadicFrameworks — archive_org Module (RTT/1)#

This instructor version includes:

  • model answers
  • drift‑bounded reasoning checks
  • common student errors
  • evaluation criteria
  • instructor prompts
  • safety notes (no content‑based inference)

Students use the student lab (H16).
Instructors use this version to guide, grade, and correct.

============================================================

📘 LAB OVERVIEW (Instructor Notes)#

============================================================#

Learning objectives:

  • Students must demonstrate correct operator order
  • Students must reason structurally, not semantically
  • Students must identify drift, continuity, substrate stability
  • Students must produce a drift‑bounded final summary
  • Students must avoid speculation

Instructor watch‑outs:

  • Students often confuse content changes with structural drift
  • Students often skip PRESERVATION_OPERATOR
  • Students sometimes treat missing snapshots as “no change”
  • Students sometimes produce unbounded summaries

============================================================#

🧩 SAMPLE TARGET URL (Provided to Students)#

============================================================#

https://www.example.gov/public-records

This is a controlled synthetic URL with sample data provided in the lab.

============================================================#

🧱 STEP 1 — METADATA_OPERATOR#

============================================================#

Student Task:#

Extract substrate, regime, drift sensitivity, coherence, lineage IDs.

Sample Data Provided to Students:#

  • substrate: html
  • regime: institutional
  • drift_sensitivity: low
  • coherence: high
  • lineage_ids: ["govdocs-root"]

Instructor Expected Output:#

  • Correct transcription of metadata
  • Recognition that metadata suggests low drift
  • Awareness that metadata is not authoritative — it’s a structural hint

Common Errors:#

  • Treating metadata as “truth”
  • Ignoring drift_sensitivity
  • Assuming content stability

Instructor Prompt:#

“What does the metadata predict about stability — and how might later operators confirm or contradict it?”

============================================================#

🕰 STEP 2 — WAYBACK_OPERATOR#

============================================================#

Student Task:#

Analyze snapshots and produce drift_map + continuity_breaks.

Sample Snapshots Provided:#

Year Notes
2014 Static HTML
2017 Minor CSS changes
2020 CMS migration
2023 Same CMS, PDFs added

Instructor Expected Drift Map:#

  • 2014→2017: minor drift
  • 2017→2020: high drift (CMS migration)
  • 2020→2023: minor drift

Continuity Breaks:#

None (all snapshots present).

Instructor Expected Insight:#

Students should notice that metadata predicted low drift, but 2020 contradicts this.

Common Errors:#

  • Calling CMS migration “minor drift”
  • Confusing content changes with structural drift
  • Missing the 2020 regime shift

Instructor Prompt:#

“What changed structurally, not semantically?”

============================================================#

🧬 STEP 3 — LINEAGE_OPERATOR#

============================================================#

Student Task:#

Build lineage graph + identify regime shifts.

Instructor Expected Lineage Graph:#

2014 ──→ 2017 ──→ 2020* ──→ 2023
                     ↑
             (regime shift)

Instructor Expected Notes:#

  • 2020 is a regime shift (static HTML → CMS)
  • 2023 is a continuation of the CMS regime

Common Errors:#

  • Treating 2020 as a new object
  • Missing the structural significance of CMS migration
  • Over‑focusing on content

Instructor Prompt:#

“What structural elements persisted across the shift?”

============================================================#

📦 STEP 4 — COLLECTION_OPERATOR#

============================================================#

Student Task:#

Identify collection context.

Sample Data Provided:#

  • collection_id: govdocs
  • coherence_clusters: ["public-records", "agency-index"]
  • related_objects: ["govdocs/records-archive"]

Instructor Expected Insight:#

  • Government collections tend to be stable
  • But stability is not guaranteed — drift still occurs

Common Errors:#

  • Assuming government pages never drift
  • Treating collection membership as “proof” of stability

Instructor Prompt:#

“How does collection context inform your expectations without overriding evidence?”

============================================================#

🧱 STEP 5 — PRESERVATION_OPERATOR#

============================================================#

Student Task:#

Evaluate substrate stability.

Sample Data Provided:#

  • 2014: HTML
  • 2017: HTML
  • 2020: HTML (CMS)
  • 2023: HTML + PDF attachments

Instructor Expected Output:#

  • HTML: medium drift risk
  • CMS HTML: medium/high drift risk
  • PDF: high stability

Instructor Expected Insight:#

  • The PDF attachments (2023) are likely the most stable layer
  • HTML snapshots are drift‑prone

Common Errors:#

  • Treating CMS HTML as “more stable”
  • Ignoring PDF stability

Instructor Prompt:#

“Which substrate would you trust for long‑term continuity?”

============================================================#

🟣 STEP 6 — DRIFTBOUND_RETRIEVAL_OPERATOR#

============================================================#

Student Task:#

Produce a drift‑bounded final summary.

Instructor Expected Summary (Model):#

Earliest stable version: 2014 (static HTML)
Most reliable version: 2023 PDF attachments
Key changes: minor drift (2014→2017), major CMS migration (2020), minor drift (2020→2023)
Warnings: metadata predicted low drift, but 2020 shows high drift; HTML snapshots are drift‑prone

Instructor Expected Qualities:#

  • No speculation
  • Drift explicitly acknowledged
  • Substrate stability incorporated
  • Continuity preserved

Common Errors:#

  • Claiming content changes as structural
  • Ignoring the CMS migration
  • Failing to include drift warnings
  • Treating metadata as authoritative

Instructor Prompt:#

“Does your summary reflect all operator outputs, not just snapshots?”

============================================================#

📝 GRADING RUBRIC (Instructor Edition)#

============================================================#

Category Excellent (4) Satisfactory (3) Developing (2) Needs Work (1)
Metadata Fully correct, insightful Mostly correct Partial Incorrect
Drift Analysis Accurate drift_map + breaks Mostly correct Partial Missing
Lineage Clear graph + regime shift Basic graph Partial Missing
Collection Correct + contextualized Basic Partial Missing
Substrate Correct stability + risk Mostly correct Partial Incorrect
Final Summary Fully drift‑bounded Mostly correct Partial Unbounded
Reasoning Continuity‑aligned Mostly aligned Some speculation Speculative

Total: 28 points

============================================================#

🏁 End of Instructor Lab#

============================================================#

Updated

Desenvolvido por Docsbook