Forge Research | Programme Synthesis Status

Choose the audience that matches your question

The page contains three selectable readings of the same subject.

Coding agent and operator assistance. Demo metrics are illustrative.

Terminal, search, lint, test, git, and more.

Remembers your codebase and team context.

Specialised agents collaborate across concerns.

Review diffs, request changes, final sign-off.

Replay any session bit-for-bit when something needs review.

Autonomous agents that write code and keep receipts

to handle network timeouts, 5xx responses, and idempotent-safe conditions. Pure helper, fully unit-tested.

is the result, and it is recorded as one.

Three ways a person can answer. The search takes none of them on its own.

The five supplied examples and how both candidates answer them

report the smallest amount in a sequence

reads the empty sequence as outside the permitted input

reads the empty sequence as having a neutral amount

two candidates, two honest stopping points, both reported as they stand

formal theory outside the current contract

Any behaviour on a target the record does not name.

That the recorded identities are the ones the run produced.

graph, plan, artefact and result share one record

Any property the contract did not encode, and any emitted artefact.

The semantics that were encoded and the assumptions the packet pinned.

Behaviour beyond the bound, which was never searched.

That the declared domain is the one the result will be used inside.

Behaviour on any input outside the recorded set.

That the declared cases represent the behaviour the researcher cares about.

Only that the packet named the language the candidate was built from.

That the proof, the graph, the Kera plan and the result identity refer to one another.

The supported symbolic property, proved over the encoded semantics.

Every value in a finite declared domain, without a failure.

Every concrete case the packet declared, run and compared.

Types, shapes, effects, ownership and the declared interface.

Take any one of these five away and it is a different statement.

A formal result, and a separate check of it.

Whole numbers only, and nothing outside the program.

Holds for every whole number in the declared range.

One row is shared. Every other responsibility sits on exactly one side of the boundary.

Research programme, not a software offer

Silhouettes are structural, not source. Ribbon lengths are relative positions on one frontier.

Candidate E is dominated by candidate D on the active objective set

Balanced is also a preference, and it is recorded as one.

Every one of these four is correct, so this is a preference and not a ranking.

B gives up the least on any single measure.

C runs on the widest set of supported machines.

B moves the least data, and takes longer to finish.

A finishes soonest, and holds the most data while it works.

D forgoes one rewrite to stay simple to check.

No lane on this board ends with generated fallback code. Each one ends with a named result and the person who owns the next move.

not represented by the verification contract

the result arrives inside a fixed wall clock window

the total never decreases as entries are added

every amount stays inside the declared range

Keep every reading inside the safe range

A comparison that carries across to another experiment packet.

The two lines cross, which is why neither candidate is the answer on its own.

The empty cell is the claim: proof complexity was modelled and never measured.

A place where a model output may stand in for a measurement.

Four objectives, two candidates, one experiment

Relative positions on one experiment, higher is more costly.

A single score the two candidates can be ranked by.

the run continues under the same identity

EVIDENCE THE NEXT CANDIDATE MUST SATISFY

Choose an iteration of the refinement loop

The third candidate satisfies every recorded obligation. The verifier finds no violating input inside the supported domain and returns a proof with its assumptions listed beside it.

for all x in i32, plus both recorded cases

The second candidate has to satisfy the examples and the overflow case together. It widens the intermediate before multiplying, and the verifier returns a second case the specification had never pinned: an empty input.

for all x in i32, plus the recorded case

The first candidate satisfies the three supplied examples. The verifier searches the whole of i32 and returns one concrete input where the scaled product leaves the declared range.

nothing on this sheet collapses the four objectives into one number

a longer audit path, gaining wider target fit instead

a longer audit path, gaining lower movement instead

a longer audit path than the selected member on the active set

A regulated programme reads the same frontier along the evidence axis and takes member D.

runs on fewer supported targets, trading breadth for audit path

runs on fewer supported targets, trading breadth for movement

runs on fewer supported targets than the selected member

An estate spread across mixed hardware reads the same frontier along the target axis and takes member C.

moves more data, and keeps a shorter derivation instead

moves more data, spread across more supported targets

moves more data than the selected member on the active set

A deployment constrained by memory traffic reads the same frontier along the movement axis and takes member B.

higher modelled latency, and its shorter audit path is not the axis

higher modelled latency, and its breadth is not being paid for here

higher modelled latency than the selected member on the active set

An engineering team with one target machine reads the frontier along the latency axis and takes member A.

relative positions only, no measured figures

One expression expanded into four classes of equivalent form, with the path to the selected extraction target lit and one refused edge drawn but never lit

An expression expanded into a network of equivalent forms, with conditions on the edges

Extracting for portability takes the strength reduction and the layout change instead. It runs more operations than the algebraic form and reaches the widest set of supported targets.

Extracting for movement carries the same algebraic step on into the fusion class. It runs fewer operations than the layout form and holds the lowest memory movement of the three.

Extracting for latency takes the algebraic form and stops there. It runs the fewest operations and moves more data than the fused form, and it is entitled to the width condition that was proved.

Promotion requires evidence, not a control. This affordance is unavailable in every state on this board, which is the rule being drawn.

one node changed, and the label returns to well formed

the floating region of the same graph, which this encoding does not represent

exact integer semantics and a region declared pure by the packet

every input the formal theory can express

the encoded relation across the whole supported domain

a supported universal relation was proved under stated assumptions

any input outside the supplied set, including the quantified condition

the reference behaviour supplied with the packet, inside its own domain

the concrete cases written into the specification

the declared concrete cases passed and nothing beyond them was claimed

behaviour on a target profile the execution link does not name

the numerical family and the effects the packet permitted, both pinned

the declared input range on one supported target profile

the proved relation, then the plan and the artefact that carried it into execution

graph, plan, artefact and result identity stay bound together

No program is produced, and the reason is named.

Bring the service inside the model, or narrow the claim.

Part of the behaviour rests outside the boundary the checking is able to describe.

The search reached the limit it was given and stopped before settling the question.

Two different behaviours agree on all three examples and disagree on the fourth input.

The two rules meet head on. A negative input cannot satisfy both of them at once.

ONE NODE, MARKED IN ALL THREE RENDERINGS

The same semantic graph rendered as a node graph, as an expression and as dataflow, with one node marked in all three renderings and joined by a single rule

One semantic graph drawn three ways, as a graph, as an expression and as dataflow, with the clamp node marked in all three

The shape is kept, the gaps are searched.

Checked on every reading the rule can name.

reading, the answer stays between 0 and 100, and never moves by more than one step.

It separates into three forms, and each one can be checked.

“Keep every reading inside the safe range, and never let it jump.”

A form is chosen, not merged. The record keeps which one carried the claim.

Three ways to state what a program should do

Both lanes leave the same requirement. Only one of them is still open at the bottom of the drawing.

behaviour, constraints and risks, written down once

verified semantic graph plus obligations

the curve is fixed while only the policy changes

the frontier belongs to the objective set

A trade-off plot of latency against memory movement, with target fit drawn as marker size, four non-dominated members joined by the frontier curve, and seven dominated candidates each joined to the member that dominates it