Figure 1: Fresh external outcomes on the shared 80-case PlanBench evaluation. The Qwen path is teacher-free same-checkpoint self-distillation. The Phi path uses a separate stronger reasoning teacher. Exact counts are printed above the bars.
Table 1: The two external paths share the governance-selected pipeline but not the same causal classification.
Path
Target producer
Training recipient
Target provenance
Frozen reading
Qwen
Qwen3-14B thinking
Same checkpoint, non-thinking
No oracle; no stronger teacher
Semantic only
Phi
Phi-4-reasoning
Separate base Phi-4
No oracle; stronger teacher
Full-band distillation
Figure 2: Matched target-selection ablation on 160 fresh PlanBench cases. The left panel shows downstream VAL acceptance for base and three 24-target training arms. The right panel shows that the VAL advantage over blinded model self-selection is positive in both block-count strata.
Table 2: Fresh synthetic one-response repair after training only on model- generated, verifier-selected targets. The two Generator A rows use different case-disjoint evaluation partitions. The later Generator A step does not clear its frozen materiality gate.
Construction and partition
Base
First adapter
Second adapter
Later adapter
Generator A, initial
10/48
21/48
n/a
n/a
Generator A, later
9/48
21/48
33/48
35/48
Generator B, Qwen
12/80
44/80
62/80
n/a
Generator C, Qwen
57/128
128/128
126/128
n/a
Generator B, Phi self-training
10/80
77/80
n/a
n/a
Figure 3: Verified performance versus mean request latency on the external evaluation. Arrows connect the expensive target-producing regime to the cheap trained specialist. The source-versus-specialist semantic comparisons are descriptive compression diagnostics, not preregistered superiority tests.
Table 3: Formal Qwen target acquisition on the fresh harvest partition.
Harvest measure
Observed
Frozen gate
Distinct VAL-admitted targets
24/32
at least 16
First-attempt successes
13/32
reported
Successes within eight attempts
24/32
reported
Beyond-first-attempt headroom
11
at least 8
Completed HTTP requests
118/118
at least 98%
Completion tokens
419,201
at most 2,500,000
A100 time
0.649 h
at most 6 h
Figure 4: Qwen self-sourced one-response learning across three synthetic constructions. Generator C’s high base rate and first-round saturation limit its evidence about iteration.
Table 4: Fresh Qwen evaluation on the external 80-case partition. Token counts are totals across each arm.
Qwen arm
VAL accepted
Schema-valid
Mean latency
Completion tokens
Base, non-thinking
1/80
71/80
0.624 s
1,729
Base, thinking
30/80
77/80
65.964 s
254,960
Self-24, non-thinking
57/80
80/80
1.186 s
2,965
Figure 5: First-attempt and 32-attempt success on matched pools. Panels use different case sets and are not pooled. Training expands fixed-budget reachability through Default30 on Generator A and Round 1 on Generator B; Generator C saturates the frozen frontier after Round 1.
Table 5: Matched target sets and training outcomes. Only target selection changes across arms.
Selector
VAL-valid targets
Train time
Final loss
VAL
24/24
64.1 s
0.3545
Qwen self-selection
20/24
64.2 s
0.3905
Schema-only frozen order
15/24
64.0 s
0.5077
Figure 6: Zero-shot transfer from Generator A adapters to Generator B. Default30 passes the aggregate gate but crosses the frozen family-regression guard. Round3 is a predeclared secondary trajectory arm and cannot replace the primary treatment after results are opened.
Table 6: Fresh outcomes for the matched target-selection ablation.
Evaluation arm
VAL accepted
Schema-valid
Mean latency
Base, non-thinking
1/160
129/160
1.395 s
Schema-selected adapter
55/160
152/160
1.410 s
Model-self-selected adapter
69/160
159/160
1.385 s
VAL-selected adapter
102/160
160/160
1.202 s
Table 7: Fresh Phi evaluation on the same external 80-case partition. Token counts are totals across each arm.
Phi arm
VAL accepted
Schema-valid
Mean latency
Completion tokens
Base Phi-4
2/80
35/80
1.027 s
3,362
Phi-4-reasoning
30/80
41/80
150.283 s
544,408
Distilled Phi-4
51/80
80/80
0.981 s
2,531
Table 8: Synthetic evidence map. All evaluation partitions are case-disjoint from their training targets. Generator separation is by implementation, not by independent authorship.
Stage
Model
Training-target source
Fresh evaluation
Evidentiary role
Oracle precursor
Phi-4, Qwen3-14B
Procedural schedule, verifier-confirmed
144 rows per model
Teachability and signal attribution
Generator A
Qwen3-14B
Same-model accepted samples
48-row one-response and 32-row search pools
Bounded loop, cumulative learning, stopping
Generator B
Qwen3-14B
Same-model accepted samples
80-row one-response and 32-row search pools
Native construction replication and transfer boundary
Generator C
Qwen3-14B
Same-model accepted samples
128-row one-response and 32-row search pools
Construction-separated first-round replication
Generator B
Phi-4
Same-model accepted samples
80-row one-response and 32-row search pools
Cross-model method replication
Table 9: Qwen training and inference feedback cross. The primary causal comparison fixes localized inference and changes only the training trace.
Training state
Inference feedback
Pass
Transport
Compound
Base
Localized
31/144
128/144
5/48
Localized-trained
Localized
139/144
144/144
45/48
Base
Verdict-only
35/144
135/144
9/48
Localized-trained
Verdict-only
115/144
144/144
33/48
Verdict-only-trained
Localized
133/144
144/144
41/48
Verdict-only-trained
Verdict-only
136/144
144/144
44/48
Table 10: Target-hidden search attribution. “Later” counts targets first accepted after at least one verifier rejection.
Search condition
Accepted
Pass@1
Later
Calls
Transport
Fixed generic
12/32
8/32
4
678
678/678
Fixed localized
16/32
10/32
6
591
590/591
Adaptive localized
16/32
11/32
5
539
539/539
Table 11: Fresh one-response transitions from verifier-selected self-training. The Generator A rows use separate case-disjoint partitions. Generator C Round 1 reaches 128/128; its final Round 2 arm reaches 126/128 and does not improve on the saturated first-round measurement.
Machine-verifiable workflows produce governance records linking a task contract, model attempt, verifier decision, accepted output, and target origin. We test whether these records can supervise bounded models, consolidating occasional or expensive capability into reliable one-shot execution.
On fresh, structure-disjoint PlanBench replanning cases, Qwen3-14B thinking generated 24 plans admitted by the independently authored VAL verifier. Those plans trained the same checkpoint for non-thinking execution, without oracle targets or a stronger teacher. On 80 unopened cases, VAL-accepted plans increased from 1 to 57, with 56 paired gains and zero regressions; thinking reached 30. The adapter was schema-valid on all cases and used approximately 1/56 of thinking's mean latency. The separate paired interface-cure gate did not pass.
A matched ablation fixed the source cases, 52-candidate pool, 24-target count, model, recipe, and seed while changing target selection. On 160 new cases, base, schema-selected, model-self-selected, and VAL-selected execution reached 1, 55, 69, and 102 accepted plans. VAL exceeded self-selection by paired net +33 (p=0.0000019647), with gains in both difficulty strata. Independent semantic selection is therefore load-bearing relative to matched alternatives within this band.
A complementary Phi stronger-teacher arm raised base Phi-4 from 2 to 51 accepted plans and from 35 to 80 schema-valid outputs. Earlier synthetic experiments establish teachability, cumulative learning, construction robustness, and stopping boundaries. The results support verifier-selected supervision for bounded, machine-checkable capabilities, not arbitrary planning, enterprise validity, or unrestricted self-improvement.
