NRR-Core: Non-Resolution Reasoning as a Computational Framework for Contextual Identity and Ambiguity Preservation

Ambiguity-bearing inputs reach downstream systems through interfaces that favor a single resolved response before later context arrives. Even when alternatives are externalized, their representation and relative activation depend on the update rule. We address this state-maintenance problem within Non-Resolution Reasoning (NRR) by specifying a typed external text-to-state interface and explicit state-update contract. A mapping (phi: T -> S) constructs typed (v,c,w,m) records; declared operators make record carry-forward inspectable, while a record-weight entropy criterion separately tests normalized-weight concentration. The contract covers dampening, calibration, deferred resolution, contradiction-preserving integration, and temporal persistence. Across 580 constructed states/pairs, an executable suite performs 2,740 operator-state measurements. Tested non-violating transitions and calibration/identity checks show 0% record-weight entropy violations; a uniform-subtraction comparison violates the criterion at 1.7%, 6.1%, and 17.8% as subtraction increases. A separate 68-input construction audit finds multiple positive-weight typed records (mean record-weight entropy H = 1.087 bits) under the reported rule-based and archived LLM-assisted procedures, including a Japanese marker-set instantiation. The entropy criterion does not by itself certify record identity or cardinality, semantic adequacy, or end-to-end behavioral improvement. The repository provides deterministic reruns, archived prompt/output artifacts, transcript audit, and a fixed 18-set LLM-case sanity rerun. Phi therefore turns retained-state maintenance into a typed, executable, and falsifiable interface: record carry-forward is inspectable in declared operators, and normalized-weight concentration is separately testable before downstream commitment.

Dialogue failures in language models are usually framed as memory failures: context too long, summaries lossy, a constraint forgotten. We argue this misses a deeper problem: in many conversations the model does not forget, it commits too early. An ambiguous early turn collapses into a single hidden interpretation, and later clarification is filtered through that commitment. We call this early posterior collapse: unresolved user intent collapsing into a committed task state before ambiguity is resolved. We study it with controlled dialogue tasks in writing, planning, and coding using Gemini-2.5-Pro and Gemini-2.5-Flash. Across thousands of trials, the same information in different orders yields different outcomes, even when the final dialogue contains equivalent task-relevant information. This order effect suggests later clarification is treated as extra context rather than a corrective signal: it refines a stale task state without invalidating it. Coding tasks are especially vulnerable, suggesting early assumptions get embedded in structured artifacts such as interfaces and control flow. Standard prompting and memory strategies do not reliably help: summaries can collapse ambiguity, and chain-of-thought can reduce explicit wrong commitment in reasoning traces without improving final task success. These findings motivate uncertainty-preserving state management. If assistants cannot let go of early interpretations, robustness cannot rely on post hoc correction alone; it must keep ambiguous early turns from hardening into one task state. Assistants should hold tentative hypotheses while ambiguity remains, ask before executing when high-impact ambiguity persists, and rebuild from a revised state when later evidence invalidates an earlier reading. Rather than one prompting fix, we aim to redirect research for interactive LLMs from retaining more context toward preserving uncertainty.

Ambiguity is often treated as a bug for AI systems to resolve---but in human communication and culture, ambiguity can also be a generative resource. From humour to politics to art, people express themselves in words and images that are open enough to invite different interpretations, yet constrained enough to be interpretable. We operationalise this notion of calibrated ambiguity with a task drawn from the parlour game Dixit. We compare differences in clues generated by human vs multimodal language models, based on a novel coding rubric for calibrated ambiguity, and find that models consistently exhibit ambiguity collapse (i.e., their outputs are over-specified, leaving no room for multiple legitimate interpretations). Unlike human clues, AI-generated clues also exhibit cultural flattening; they almost never make reference to culturally-situated knowledge, even when prompted to use allusion and figurative language.