# ADMIRALTY_AS_INPUT -- The A-F / 1-6 Input Contract and Anti-Collapse Doctrine

**Provenance:** Phase 3 S02 R2.3. Capet & Revault d'Allonnes 2019 (*Intelligence and National Security* 34:4); SANS 2020; Baker et al. 1968 (A1/B2/C3 diagonal).

**Doctrine:** Admiralty reliability (A-F) and credibility (1-6) are TWO inputs to dimension D4 of the shared schema. They are NOT the fitness judgment. They are NOT a composite. They NEVER substitute for D1 (inferential-load match), and the downstream fitness score is NEVER reconstructible from them alone.

---

## Input definitions (consumed, not computed here)

- **Reliability A-F.** Source-level property -- history of trustworthy reporting by this producer. A = completely reliable; F = cannot be judged. Enters D4 as input `admiralty_reliability_A_to_F`.
- **Credibility 1-6.** Item-level property -- plausibility / consistency of THIS piece of information. 1 = confirmed by independent sources; 6 = cannot be judged. Enters D4 as input `admiralty_credibility_1_to_6`.

These are received from upstream (Multi-Corpus Retrieval Router or Source Integrity Screen). Fitness Adjudicator does NOT compute them.

## The Baker 1968 anti-collapse check (mandatory)

Baker et al. (1968) found 87% of real-world Admiralty ratings fell along the A1 / B2 / C3 diagonal. This is empirical evidence that analysts collapse the two scales into a single latent "quality" dimension, destroying the scales' intended orthogonality. Capet & Revault d'Allonnes (2019) add that the credibility scale conflates plausibility with consistency.

**Consequence for D4 scoring:**

1. Write the reliability and credibility inputs SEPARATELY in the D4 rationale. Do NOT combine them in text before they appear separately.
2. If the inputs move together (both high, both low) without independent justification in the source profile, set `admiralty_collapse_suspected=true` in the D4 rationale object.
3. If `admiralty_collapse_suspected=true`, the D4 rationale must note WHY the two scales appeared to track (e.g., "reliability and credibility both high because source is a well-credentialed author writing a plausible claim in their own field -- orthogonality preserved in practice"). If no such independent justification exists, score D4 no higher than 3 regardless of the inputs.

## Anti-substitution rule (the core of R2.3)

An A1 rating does NOT mean fit. A peer-reviewed journal article with A1 Admiralty can still score D1=1 for a causal claim if confounding is unaddressed, OR D1=1 for a predictive claim if no calibration track record exists, OR D1=1 for a normative claim if argumentative coherence is absent.

**Operational rule:** If the headline fitness score can be reconstructed from D2 (integrity) + D4 (Admiralty) alone -- to within 0.3 on the 0-5 scale -- the schema has degenerated into covert tier-bias. Step 4's anti-collapse check fires `tier_bias_suspected=true`; ANTI_DEVIATION.md and DISQUALIFIERS.md cascade.

## SANS 2020 warning (directly cited)

"A1 should not lull you into a false sense of security." Admiralty is "a tool to aid decision-making," not a decision. Restated for this skill: Admiralty is D4 input. Fitness is D1 + D2 + D3 + D4 + D5 weighted by claim-type profile. These are not the same object.

## Handling null or sparse inputs

- Reliability missing: set `admiralty_reliability_A_to_F = null`, record the reason in D4 rationale, score D4 no higher than 2.
- Credibility missing: same.
- Both missing: score D4 = 0. Do NOT impute from D2 or D1. The absence IS the input.
- Source is from a corpus where Admiralty does not naturally map (indigenous-knowledge, oral histories, practitioner case reports): record `admiralty_domain_mismatch=true`, score D4 at the midpoint, and let DISCIPLINE_PRIORS.md D4 modifier (often 0.5 for these disciplines) carry the down-weight.

## Rendered output (passed forward to Step 7)

```
D4_rationale = {
  admiralty_reliability_A_to_F: "<value or null>",
  admiralty_reliability_justification: "...",       // distinct from credibility
  admiralty_credibility_1_to_6: "<value or null>",
  admiralty_credibility_justification: "...",       // distinct from reliability
  admiralty_collapse_suspected: <bool>,
  admiralty_domain_mismatch: <bool>,
  D4_score: <0-5>
}
```

## What this reference is NOT

- NOT an Admiralty scoring framework. Upstream produces the inputs.
- NOT an integrity screen (that is D2 / S2).
- NOT a judgment of fitness. D4 is one of five dimensions; fitness is the claim-type-weighted composite.
