Multi-document stores¶
A memory holding one manual behaves differently from one holding sixty-two sibling documents that share a template — a corpus class most retrieval systems meet in production and few are tested on. LMM's multi-document behaviour was built against exactly that trial, and every mechanism below is general: no keyword, no language rule, nothing tuned to any corpus.
What changes when the store is plural¶
Datelines. Every evidence line the answer path reads opens with its
document's name: Alpha Programme — the trust module opens with…. The
answer can then say which document — and because the verifier reads the
same line, naming your source is the one claim that is grounded by
construction.
The source-name channel. A question that names a document gets that document's sentences. A query word is weighed by its power to separate sources — log(S/s) over how many of the S source names carry it — so a word every sibling shares weighs exactly zero, and a single-document store is provably unaffected.
The named document speaks first. When the question named sources, their seats order to the front of the block; nothing enters or leaves it.
No monopoly. One document may hold at most the corroboration share of the block when other documents hold matching evidence — the same rule that stops one region of a document monopolising an answer, one level up.
The census. "Which documents cover X?" is not a retrieval problem — it is a count:
Milliseconds, no engine, and the counts are the receipts. The same tally rides into conversational answers as one line of store-attested fact.
The informed refusal. A turn that must decline while the census is full offers the tally instead — with datelined reasons — gated so it can only name and count what the store attests. The trigger is a state (refused, tally in hand), never a reading of the question's wording, which is what lets "what would you recommend?" get a useful, sourced reply without anyone classifying intent.
Follow-ups. "And who is it for?" names its subject by pointing. When a turn's subject resolves to nothing the memory knows and the previous turn's did, the previous subject rides along — the signal is resolution failing, which reads the same in any language.
Composition¶
The engine is handed material — datelined evidence lines plus the tally — and asked to organise, not to know. The draft is re-read line by line on the way out: a number the material does not carry is vetoed, a mixture line is dropped, structure stands. What survives returns with the documents it rests on.