Empirically test policy-centroid routing efficacy
Establish whether policy-centroid routing can improve recovery of applicable policy regimes compared with strong feasible alternatives when policy information, input facts, model opportunity, human labor, and review burden are matched.
References
Proposition 1: comparative routing under matched burden. Can a declared centroid construction recover applicable policy regimes better than the strongest feasible alternatives when policy information, input facts, model opportunity, human labor, and review burden are matched?
Proposition 3: preservation of overlap and the tail. Can the route preserve every applicable regime when actions are multilabel, including narrow or low-prevalence policy families?
Proposition 4: value under burden. Does any recovery advantage survive the cost of irrelevant routes, displaced correct routes, indexing and inference, and hidden expert labor?
Proposition 5: augmentation without a strawman. Can a centroid front door strengthen a serious conventional workflow?
Proposition 6: knowable boundaries. Can the method's limits be described by domain, hierarchy layer, policy version, language, action population, and abstention behavior?
Prototype classification and dense, sparse-expansion, and late-interaction retrieval show that learned representations can organize other tasks. They supply plausibility for the geometry, not evidence of policy applicability. That proposition remains untested.
The empirical ledger for this mechanism is still blank. This paper contains no completed study, pilot result, null result, or operational efficacy claim. The scientific question remains open.