vh
64bf9d313f
§3.13, plus the probe that produced it. Two lessons, both about measuring the wrong thing confidently. First: a tune applied AFTER an abliteration can walk it back, and a reasoning/craft/memorisation gate cannot see that. brokkr-smithy-dev's preregistered gate measured none of it — a tune that gains 41 items of contradiction detection and quietly restores refusals passes every check. The compliance axis has to be added explicitly. Second, and this is the trap: measure the axis the abliteration was actually FOR. Ours was run so the model engages explicit fiction. The probe reached for mlabonne/harmful_behaviors — weapons, malware, fraud — because it was cached and carried a recorded baseline. Different refusal surface entirely, and a model moves on them independently. 29/100 general-harm refusals on a tune whose prose the operator was praising at the time is not obviously a defect and may be desirable: general-harm refusals returning while domain compliance holds is close to the ideal shape for an internal creative seat. The measurement was real; its relevance was assumed. Also recorded, because both were nearly missed: - Read the interesting cell. In 29 hard / 0 deflect / 71 comply, the load-bearing number is 71. Stock refused 100/100; near that would mean the abliteration was undone. 71 complying means partially walked back on one axis — a different finding, and only one of the two threatens the seat. - A baseline from a different harness is not a baseline. The recorded 3/100 came from the abliteration tool's scorer, which reads first-token probability distributions; a probe that generates and regexes is a different instrument. Run your own against both arms on the same seat or report the number alone. - A refusal regex undercounts, so classify hard/deflect/comply — and the free discriminator: if both arms return zero deflections the model is binary; if only one does, the regex is fine. An artifact does not care which arm it runs against.
docs/
Navigation map for the documentation tree. New session? Read
orientation.md first — it's the narrative overview
of the fleet, backup architecture, governing principles, and gotchas,
and it points at everything else.
Tree
docs/
├── orientation.md # start here — fleet overview + where-to-look guide
├── runbooks/ # ops runbooks (recovery, deployment phases)
│ ├── disaster-recovery.md
│ ├── nh3-prune-ritual.md
│ └── pbs-deployment.md
└── pfi/ # PFI-specific reference (services, models, VMs)
├── docker-stack.md
├── model-list.md
├── proxmox-vms.md
├── recommended-model-settings.md
├── vm-102-matrix-appservice.md
└── vm-102-matrix-synapse.md
What goes where
runbooks/— step-by-step ops procedures. Anything you'd reach for during an incident or while standing up new infrastructure. Examples: disaster recovery (blast-radius tiers + restoration steps), PBS deployment (9-phase rollout). New runbook → new file here.pfi/— PFI-specific reference material that's too narrow for the top-level CLAUDE.md but doesn't change incident response. AI model inventory, recommended inference settings, Matrix bridge config, Proxmox VM map. New stable reference → new file here.- Top-level (
docs/orientation.md,docs/README.md) — narrative guides about the workspace itself, not about specific infra.
Cross-references
- Fleet topology + servers table: top-level
CLAUDE.md. - Open work + recent milestones: top-level
STATUS.md. - Durable cross-session facts:
~/.claude/projects/-home-lkraven-development-eshpfi-management/memory/.
Conventions
- Markdown, GitHub-flavored. CommonMark renders fine in most viewers.
- File names are lowercase-kebab-case, descriptive. No dates in filenames — git history covers that.
- One topic per file. If a file grows past ~500 lines, look for a natural split before adding more.
- No checked-in binaries or checksums. Build/release artifacts belong
in a build pipeline or
tools/, notdocs/.