R0020/2026-03-25/Q003 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: Imperative constraints documented | H2: Not discussed | H3: Evolving from imperative to explanatory | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: Anthropic uses constraint language with context emphasis | + | -- | ++ |
| SRC01-E02: Anthropic says "dial back" imperative language | -- | N/A | ++ |
| SRC02-E01: Lakera advocates constraint-based design | + | -- | + |
| SRC03-E01: Industry recommends imperative + contract-style | ++ | -- | + |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E02 | Anthropic's "dial back" guidance is uniquely diagnostic: it strongly supports H3 while strongly contradicting H1. A vendor explicitly telling users to reduce enforcement language discriminates between current practice (H1) and emerging direction (H3). |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC02-E01 | Lakera's constraint-based design supports both H1 (constraints discussed) and H3 (emphasis on structure over enforcement) |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H3 — Constraint language is discussed and used in mainstream guides, but the field is evolving from imperative enforcement toward contextual explanation, with Anthropic leading the transition.
Hypotheses eliminated: H2 — All sources discuss constraints in some form.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H1 — Partially supported by industry practice but contradicted by the latest vendor guidance recommending reduced imperative language.