brainlehr 0.1.0

A knowledge store that speaks up.

Ordinary stores wait for a query and return similar text. brainlehr does five things an archive does not:

• It speaks up unasked. On every answer it checks whether a law, standard or internal identifier is being cited — and whether the store holds evidence for it. If not, it says so.
• It proposes what's missing. Recurring manual steps become tool proposals with a ready-made task. A failure class that recurs three times is promoted to a rule on its own.
• It contradicts. An entry without verifiable provenance is never created in the first place — enforced by a database trigger, not by convention.
• It marks foreign text as data. Not via a word list (which is inherently incomplete), but through the rendering itself.
• It measures itself. Retrieval quality, usefulness, ranking — against a third-party test corpus, judged blind. The numbers regularly come out badly; that is the point.

Runs as an MCP server on SQLite — so it works with any MCP client: Claude Code and Desktop, Codex, Hermes, or your own. Offline refers to the store, not the model: the database, the full-text index and the vectors stay on the machine. Which model you talk to is your choice — a hosted one is fine, it simply never sees more than the client sends it.

Version 0.1.0. The leading zero is the statement: no stable interface, no promise of upward compatibility. What works is evidenced — what is promised is nothing.

Next. Work pauses until 2026-08-10T23:00+02:00. After that, 0.1.1 is likely — likely, because that is not a promise either.

🇩🇪 Deutsche Fassung: README.de.md

---

What it's for

A language model forgets everything between two sessions. The usual remedy puts text into a vector database and retrieves it by similarity. That answers what did we talk about — but not:

• Who claimed this, and was it ever verified?
• Does it still hold, or has it been superseded?
• What if two entries contradict each other?
• Does the store have any effect, or does it merely return hits?

brainlehr answers these four questions with fields and measurements instead of confidence.

Quick start

python3 schnellstart.py

This creates an empty, rule-enforced database, writes brainlehr's self- description into it, and verifies at the end that the fresh instance answers the question was kannst du ("what can you do"). If it doesn't, the script exits with an error instead of a success message.

python3 schnellstart.py --bestand              # + sample corpus (NASA LLIS et al.)
python3 schnellstart.py --bestand --vektoren   # + semantic search, computed locally

Vectors are optional: full-text search works without them, and computing them takes minutes to hours depending on the machine. Rationale in docs/AUFBAU.md.

Run it as an MCP server, and check the core modules:

python3 knowledge_mcp_server.py          # stdio transport

python3 kern/ausweis.py --selftest       # identity / credential handling
python3 kern/werkzeugrechte.py --selftest # tool permissions
python3 kern/schema_nachzug.py --selftest # schema back-fill

The script prints the MCP configuration entry when it finishes. The text a language model should read first is in START_HIER.md.

Moving a corpus between instances goes through the single entry point — line by line, not by copying the database file, because SQLite files cannot be merged and git would simply overwrite them:

python3 brainlehr.py init  <target-directory>   # set up a fresh location
python3 brainlehr.py raus  auszug.jsonl         # write the corpus out
python3 brainlehr.py rein  auszug.jsonl --db knowledge.db   # read it back in
python3 brainlehr.py haken --einbauen           # wire up the hooks

Set it up by pasting a prompt

Give one of these to your agent. Each one clones, installs, verifies and wires brainlehr into that client's own config. The syntax was checked against each vendor's documentation on 2026-08-10 — if a client has changed since, the prompt says so instead of guessing.

<details> <summary><b>Claude Code</b></summary>

Set up brainlehr, a local MCP knowledge store, on this machine.

1. Clone https://github.com/3lehr/brainlehr.git into a directory I choose —
   ask me for it, do not assume one. Then cd into it.
2. Create a venv and install: python3 -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate
   && pip install -r requirements.txt
3. Run `python3 schnellstart.py`. It creates the database, writes brainlehr's
   self-description and verifies at the end that the fresh instance answers
   "was kannst du". If it exits non-zero, STOP and show me the output — do not
   continue and do not work around it.
4. Register it with Claude Code, using the ABSOLUTE path it printed:
   claude mcp add --transport stdio --scope user brainlehr -- \
       <absolute-path>/.venv/bin/python3 <absolute-path>/knowledge_mcp_server.py
5. Verify: `claude mcp list` must show brainlehr as connected. Then restart the
   session and call knowledge_search("was kannst du"). Report the number of
   hits. Zero hits means step 3 did not do what it claimed — say so.
6. Read START_HIER.md and follow it from then on.
7. Do NOT set up credentials, and do not invent one. A single user on one
   machine does not need any; writes are simply marked `unbeglaubigt:`. If I
   ever ask for it, the secret is mine to paste — not yours to read or create.

Do not edit any file in the repository during setup. If a command fails, show
me the actual error instead of trying a different command.

</details>

<details> <summary><b>Codex / ChatGPT desktop</b></summary>

Set up brainlehr, a local MCP knowledge store, on this machine.

1. Clone https://github.com/3lehr/brainlehr.git into a directory I choose —
   ask me for it, do not assume one. Then cd into it.
2. python3 -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate
   && pip install -r requirements.txt
3. Run `python3 schnellstart.py`. It verifies itself at the end. If it exits
   non-zero, STOP and show me the output — do not work around it.
4. Register it in ~/.codex/config.toml (the ChatGPT desktop app, Codex CLI and
   the IDE extension share this file), using the ABSOLUTE paths:

   [mcp_servers.brainlehr]
   command = "<absolute-path>/.venv/bin/python3"
   args = ["<absolute-path>/knowledge_mcp_server.py"]

   Equivalent CLI form:
   codex mcp add brainlehr -- <absolute-path>/.venv/bin/python3 \
       <absolute-path>/knowledge_mcp_server.py
5. Restart, then call knowledge_search("was kannst du") and report the hit
   count. Zero hits means step 3 did not do what it claimed — say so.
6. Read START_HIER.md and follow it from then on.
7. Do NOT set up credentials, and do not invent one. A single user on one
   machine does not need any; writes are simply marked `unbeglaubigt:`. If I
   ever ask for it, the secret is mine to paste — not yours to read or create.

Do not edit any file in the repository during setup. If a command fails, show
me the actual error instead of trying a different command.

</details>

<details> <summary><b>Hermes Agent</b></summary>

Set up brainlehr, a local MCP knowledge store, on this machine.

1. Clone https://github.com/3lehr/brainlehr.git into a directory I choose —
   ask me for it, do not assume one. Then cd into it.
2. python3 -m venv .venv && source .venv/bin/activate
   && pip install -r requirements.txt
3. Run `python3 schnellstart.py`. It verifies itself at the end. If it exits
   non-zero, STOP and show me the output — do not work around it.
4. Register it in ~/.hermes/config.yaml under mcp_servers, using ABSOLUTE
   paths:

   mcp_servers:
     brainlehr:
       command: "<absolute-path>/.venv/bin/python3"
       args: ["<absolute-path>/knowledge_mcp_server.py"]

   Note: Hermes prefixes tool names as mcp_brainlehr_<tool>. If you write any
   rule that matches on a tool name, use the prefixed form.
5. Restart, then call mcp_brainlehr_knowledge_search("was kannst du") and
   report the hit count. Zero hits means step 3 did not do what it claimed.
6. Read START_HIER.md and follow it from then on.
7. Do NOT set up credentials, and do not invent one. A single user on one
   machine does not need any; writes are simply marked `unbeglaubigt:`. If I
   ever ask for it, the secret is mine to paste — not yours to read or create.

Do not edit any file in the repository during setup. If a command fails, show
me the actual error instead of trying a different command.

</details>

Three things every one of these prompts does on purpose:

• It asks where to put the repository instead of picking a directory. An agent that chooses for you puts it somewhere you will not find again.
• It forbids working around a failure. schnellstart.py ends with a check and exits non-zero if the fresh instance cannot answer. An agent that "fixes" that by skipping the step hands you a store that looks installed.
• It asks for a number, not a verdict. "Report the hit count" can be wrong and be seen to be wrong; "it works" cannot.

What's actually in it

Provenance	source is mandatory, enforced by a database trigger; provenance fields are immutable once written
Validity	norm_rang, gilt_ab/gilt_bis and an explicit norm decision with no default value
Identity	not required — one user on one machine writes without any credential, each entry simply marked unbeglaubigt: ("unattested"). Once a credential exists, identity can no longer be asserted in the call: it is verified via scrypt. Enforcement stays soft unless BRAINLEHR_DURCHSETZUNG=streng — see Credentials
Two kinds of knowledge	nodes carry facts, lessons carry failure classes with cause, fix and prevention
Hybrid search	FTS5 including trigram, plus local vectors (bge-m3), fused via RRF — entirely on-device
Associative edges	reinforce what is retrieved together; an edge means "co-occurred", not "is related"
Access log	every read and write in access_log, chained via SHA-256 — tampering becomes provable, not impossible

How it works

Three flows, drawn from the code as it stands on 2026-08-10. The trigger names are the actual ones in schema.sql; the thresholds are the measured ones.

A note on the German identifiers

You do not need this table to read the diagrams — they state what each step does in English and give the German name in brackets, because that is what you will grep for in the code. This is the lookup for when you get there:

identifier	meaning
herkunft / source	provenance
freigabe	release status: intern (default) · offen · gesperrt
gattung	kind: arbeitsbestand (working set) · nachschlagewerk (reference, kept out of automatic recall)
anlass	trigger: what caused the entry (betreiber, selbst, hook, skript)
norm_rang · gilt_ab · gilt_bis	norm rank · valid from · valid until
unbeglaubigt	unattested — no credential was presented
pruefer · rasterblick · doctor	the reporters: field auditor · search-coverage auditor · self-check
pflege/ · kern/ · melder/ · haken/	maintenance · core · reporters · hooks
parent_check · source_check	trigger: parent node must exist · provenance must be present
norm_entscheidung_pflicht	trigger: the norm decision has no default — it must be stated
normrang_herkunft	trigger: a house rule needs a human decider
herkunft_bu	trigger: provenance fields are immutable once written
knowledge_fassung_au	trigger: archives the previous version on update
access_log	the access log — every read and write, SHA-256 chained

Trigger names end in two letters that say when they fire: _bi before insert, _bu before update, _ai after insert, _au after update, _ad after delete. So herkunft_bu is "provenance, before update" — it is what refuses a change to a provenance field.

Why not rename them: the reasoning behind this project was written in German, and the identifiers carry that reasoning. gilt_bis and valid_until are the same field; Geltung and validity are not quite the same thought.

1. Writing — every barrier sits in the database, not in the caller

A write is refused by SQLite itself. An agent that forgets provenance does not produce a bad entry; it produces no entry and an error message.

flowchart TD
    A["knowledge_add(...)"] --> B{"is this tool permitted?<br/><i>(kern/werkzeugrechte.py)</i>"}
    B -- "no" --> BX["refused at tools/call<br/>— not merely hidden from tools/list"]
    B -- "yes" --> C["knowledge_mcp_server.py<br/>ensure_schema()"]
    C --> D["back-fill missing columns<br/>WAL checkpoint + backup first<br/><i>(kern/schema_nachzug.py)</i>"]
    D --> E["INSERT INTO knowledge_nodes"]

    E --> T1{"provenance must be present<br/><i>(source_check)</i>"}
    T1 -- "empty" --> X1["ABORT — logged as<br/>add | rejected | source_fehlt"]
    T1 --> T2{"parent node must exist<br/><i>(parent_check)</i>"}
    T2 -- "missing" --> X2["ABORT"]
    T2 --> T3{"norm decision must be stated<br/>— there is no default<br/><i>(norm_entscheidung_pflicht)</i>"}
    T3 -- "unset" --> X3["ABORT — the field exists to answer<br/>'did nobody look, or is it really not a norm?'"]
    T3 --> T4{"a house rule needs a HUMAN decider<br/><i>(normrang_herkunft)</i>"}
    T4 -- "model as decider" --> X4["ABORT"]
    T4 --> T5{"value ranges: trigger, release, kind<br/><i>(anlass · freigabe · gattung)</i>"}
    T5 --> T6{"expiry cannot precede start<br/><i>(gilt_bis_vor_gilt_ab)</i>"}
    T6 --> OK["row written"]

    OK --> F1["full-text index updated<br/><i>(knowledge_ai)</i>"]
    OK --> F2["previous version archived on update<br/><i>(knowledge_fassung_au)</i>"]
    OK --> F3["access log, SHA-256 chained<br/><i>(access_log)</i>"]

    E -.->|"UPDATE"| H{"provenance fields are immutable<br/><i>(herkunft_bu)</i>"}
    H -- "attempted change" --> X5["ABORT"]

    style X1 fill:#4a1010,color:#fff
    style X2 fill:#4a1010,color:#fff
    style X3 fill:#4a1010,color:#fff
    style X4 fill:#4a1010,color:#fff
    style X5 fill:#4a1010,color:#fff
    style BX fill:#4a1010,color:#fff
    style OK fill:#0f3d1e,color:#fff

17 trigger families guard knowledge_nodes, 42 triggers in total. Case 5 in the list above shows why this sits in the database: the model reported "saved" while the barrier had already refused the write. Had the check lived in the caller, the entry would exist today.

2. Reading — the automatic recall, and where it deliberately stays silent

flowchart TD
    P["user prompt<br/>(UserPromptSubmit hook)"] --> S1{"empty, or starts with '/'?"}
    S1 -- "yes" --> Q1["silent — a slash command is not a question"]
    S1 -- "no" --> K["stop words removed<br/><i>(keywords)</i>"]
    K --> S2{"fewer than MIN_HITS=3<br/>keywords left?"}
    S2 -- "yes" --> Q2["silent — cannot clear the bar anyway,<br/>so don't even query"]
    S2 -- "no" --> R["search<br/><i>(query)</i>"]

    R --> R1["FTS5 incl. trigram folding"]
    R --> R2["local vectors (bge-m3)<br/>brute force, no ANN index"]
    R1 --> RRF["rrf_fuse()<br/>reciprocal rank fusion"]
    R2 --> RRF
    RRF --> D["drop what THIS session already received<br/>ADR-033, saves a measured 79%<br/><i>(_dedup_session)</i>"]
    D --> S3{"anything left?"}
    S3 -- "no" --> L0["the NEGATIVE case is logged too —<br/>without it the log is no denominator<br/><i>(log_recall with empty result)</i>"]
    S3 -- "yes" --> L1["logged<br/><i>(log_recall)</i>"]
    L1 --> O["hookSpecificOutput.additionalContext → model<br/>systemMessage + continue + suppressOutput → human"]

    style Q1 fill:#3a3000,color:#fff
    style Q2 fill:#3a3000,color:#fff
    style L0 fill:#3a3000,color:#fff
    style O fill:#0f3d1e,color:#fff

MIN_HITS=3 is not a guess. Measured on a synthetic corpus and on 1,923 real prompts: at 2 the recall is higher (0.369 vs 0.141) but it produces false positives on chat and meta prompts; at 3 there were none. The value sits on the Pareto front and is documented in the source with all three measurements.

No approximate vector index — on purpose. Every query is compared against all vectors in the store. An ANN index would not guarantee the best hit, and that would invalidate the retrieval-quality measurement that is currently being built up. Speed is not the bottleneck; honesty about the number is.

3. The loop — what makes it a store rather than an archive

flowchart LR
    W["work in a session"] --> C["record a lesson: cause · fix · prevention<br/><i>(lesson_record)</i>"]
    C --> DB[("knowledge.db")]
    DB --> RE["recall hook<br/>injects on the next prompt"]
    RE --> W

    DB --> M["reporters at session start:<br/>self-check · field auditor · coverage auditor<br/><i>(doctor · pruefer · rasterblick)</i>"]
    M -->|"finding"| W

    C --> E{"same failure class<br/>3rd occurrence?"}
    E -- "yes" --> RU["escalated_to_rule"]

    DB --> X["export: released entries only<br/><i>(pflege/export_offen.py, freigabe='offen')</i>"]
    X --> XC{"bait list · patterns ·<br/>path de-localisation"}
    XC -- "hit" --> XA["writes NOTHING"]
    XC -- "clean" --> XO["auszug-offen/bestand.jsonl"]

    style XA fill:#4a1010,color:#fff
    style RU fill:#0f3d1e,color:#fff

The export is deny-by-default: a new node is intern by design, so it drops out unless someone deliberately releases it. The positive control is mandatory — a check that reports "no personal data found" says nothing about the corpus unless it can be shown to find known values. It found 44 suspected cases once, all 44 false positives, while a real name sat in the corpus (case 7 above).

Credentials — you can skip this

Trying brainlehr out? Skip this whole section. One person on one machine needs no credential: writes go through, and each one is marked unbeglaubigt: ("unattested") in its actor field. Nothing is blocked, nothing is hidden, and the marking is honest rather than in your way. That is the intended first experience — a store you can test in ten minutes, not an identity system you have to configure first.

Read on only when a second participant appears: another person, an agent that should be distinguishable from you, or a second machine. Then attribution stops being decoration and starts being an answer to who wrote this.

It takes three steps — and the third is the one that gets skipped.

1. Naturalisation, not self-registration. Nobody can grant themselves a credential. A human holding ausweis:ausstellen issues a one-time PIN:

python3 kern/anmeldung.py <name> --durch <inviting-person> --rolle <role>

ausweis:ausstellen is in NICHT_DELEGIERBAR — whoever may naturalise cannot pass that power on. Otherwise the first naturalisation would be the last control. The founding act itself sits outside the system: as long as the credential directory belongs to the running process, anyone can perform it, including a model. sudo chown root on that directory is what turns it into what it should be — an act that requires your password.

2. Redeem the PIN. The new participant calls knowledge_anmelden with it. The secret comes back exactly once and is never logged.

3. Put the secret into the client's config — this is the step that gets skipped. Without it the server never sees a credential, and every write stays unattested even though the credential exists on disk:

// ~/.claude.json → mcpServers.<name>
"env": {
  "BRAINLEHR_GEHEIMNIS": "<the secret from step 2>",
  "BEGOD_KNOWLEDGE_ACTOR": "<name>"
}

For Codex it goes under [mcp_servers.<name>.env] in ~/.codex/config.toml, for Hermes under the server's env: block in ~/.hermes/config.yaml.

Then restart the client. Delete the hand-over file afterwards — it is the only place the secret exists in clear text.

Soft and strict

weich (default)	an unattested write is executed and marked unbeglaubigt_weich:<right>
streng	an unattested write is refused: kein_ausweis_streng:<right>; reads still work

BRAINLEHR_DURCHSETZUNG=streng switches it. Check before you flip it: every writing path needs a credential first, including your own scripts and hooks. In the author's own installation, 106 writes in one day were all unattested — a premature switch would have locked out the maintainer, not an attacker.

The credential file itself lives on your desktop (~/Desktop/brainlehr-ausweise/), overridable via BRAINLEHR_AUSWEISE. It holds scrypt hashes and roles, no secrets. The reasoning, verbatim from the source: permissions (0600) carry the protection, not obscurity — a dot-folder in the home directory is not safer, only harder to find. The price is stated too: if that desktop is cloud-synced, the hashes travel with it.

Eight cases, with sources

Eight events, each with a timestamp, a source and the model involved. Where the model was not recorded, that is stated.

<details> <summary><b>1. A lesson from Python helped in Dart four hours later</b> — different project, different language, same failure shape</summary>

• When: recorded 2026-08-01T08:47, injected 2026-08-07T11:34:22, applied 2026-08-07T15:50 (+02:00)
• Model: claude-opus-5
• Source: node 5eca513a, lesson L-0968ae, injection logged in recall_log.jsonl

In openlehr (Python) a route swallowed every error in a try/except and emitted it only as a warning that no test and no interface reads — silent data loss in production. Six days later the recall hook injected that lesson into a session working on wohlair (Dart/Flutter). Four hours after that it met a freshly written toggle using catch (_): a friendly message for the user, cause discarded entirely.

What transferred was not a technique but a shape: the user gets a message, the cause disappears. Different project, different language, different framework — exactly the transfer a project-local wiki cannot make.

What this explicitly does not prove: that such transfers happen automatically. The hook injected; a human read it and recognised the analogy. Had the application happened one session later, it would have been invisible — the node says so itself. </details>

<details> <summary><b>2. A PDF converter reported success and wrote garbage</b> — and the first fix was measurably wrong</summary>

• When: 2026-07-28T07:57:34 (+02:00)
• Model: not recorded
• Source: lesson L-bac968

The fallback chain PyMuPDF → pdftotext → OCR only advanced when the extracted text was empty. PDFs with an embedded font lacking a ToUnicode table return non-empty garbage (!!!"# $% &'( instead of Rechnung). Result: file written, exit code 0 — and because the output file doubled as the batch loop's done-marker, the failure cemented itself. One document sat unusable in the archive since first ingest — 1 of 358.

The instructive part is the first attempt at a fix: a detector over the fraction of "plausible characters", threshold 0.80. It flagged two intact documents (digit-heavy tables, 0.78) and let the broken one through (its garbage was digit-heavy and scored ~0.9). The number was plausible and wrong.

The second attempt measures word density and was calibrated against the real corpus: 358 documents, median 69.7 words per 1000 characters, worst genuine document 15.0, broken extraction 3.3 — threshold 10.0 sits in the gap. On failure, no output file is written at all.

The rule that came out of it: never guess a heuristic threshold — look at the distribution of the real corpus. If there is no gap, the metric is wrong, not the threshold. </details>

<details> <summary><b>3. "Upload succeeded" — the build never appeared</b></summary>

• When: 2026-07-28T08:17:07 (+02:00)
• Model: not recorded
• Source: lesson L-47e586

A TestFlight upload reported UPLOAD SUCCEEDED with no errors including a delivery UUID. The build never showed up in App Store Connect. Cause: the build number was already taken. It had been derived from a local metadata file, which inevitably lags — the store was two numbers ahead. Apple discards the duplicate during processing, silently.

The finding also resolved an older, never-explained failure of the same app, which had been blamed on placeholder icons at the time.

The transferable rule, from the lesson: once a document is demonstrably stale in one respect, it counts as unverified in all respects until checked. Partial trust in a source known to be unreliable is the actual error. </details>

<details> <summary><b>4. An expired rule was recognised as expired</b> — validity, not just retrieval</summary>

• When: 2026-08-08, searches at 13:33, finding recorded 13:36:02 (+02:00)
• Model under test: not recorded — the log lists the agent as client=skript, model=unbekannt
• Finding written by: claude-opus-5 via claude-code
• Source: node a3c66be9, rule in node 1d0fd081

The test corpus contained a fictional 20 % fee waiver, valid 2026-05-01 to 2026-07-31. Asked about it, the agent searched, quoted the period and correctly concluded that the discount no longer applies. The log shows two searches — it looked things up instead of guessing.

A full-text index would have found the rule and served it as current. The difference lies in the gilt_bis field, not in the hit rate.

The counter-case from the same run: another request ran without any search, the log stayed empty. The agent recommended marketing instead of the cancellation the stored rule required, and only afterwards asked whether it should look something up. </details>

<details> <summary><b>5. The database prevented an entry the model had already reported as done</b></summary>

• When: 2026-08-08, item 7 (recorded 13:50:00), follow-up item 9 (13:58:43), both +02:00
• Model under test: not recorded (client=skript, model=unbekannt)
• Finding written by: claude-opus-5 via claude-code
• Source: nodes bd393245 and …/messlauf-5-die-kette-v7-zu-v9-zeigt-den

The task was to record a note. The access log shows add | rejected | source_fehlt — the provenance requirement refused the write. The answer to the user nevertheless read: "I have saved the note", with a title and a rationale. Nodes in the store: zero.

Eight minutes later another request asked for exactly that note. The agent searched, did not find it — it never existed — and still produced a rationale, constructed from a different rule in the store.

The uncomfortable part is the actual finding: the barrier held, the model reported success. Without the barrier, a fabricated note would be in the store today and nobody would have seen an error. </details>

<details> <summary><b>6. A verification tool checked against 210 wrong pairs — 0 false positives</b></summary>

• When: 2026-08-09T20:47:20 (+02:00)
• Model: none involved — the check is deterministic (substring and ID comparison), runtime under one second
• Source: runs/antwortqualitaet_2026-08-09.md

Each of the 15 test tasks was checked against the correct answers of the 14 other tasks: 210 negative pairs, 0 false positives. The tasks span 9 projects and languages (Swift build, Play Billing, SQLite WAL, QR scanner, iOS crash diagnosis).

Beforehand it had been researched whether a customary rejection threshold exists for such negative controls. Result: it does not. Rather than borrowing a percentage, the local rate was measured. </details>

<details> <summary><b>7. A privacy finding the pattern catalogue missed</b></summary>

• When: finding 2026-08-06T11:56:13, addendum 2026-08-10T00:09:03 (+02:00)
• Model: not recorded
• Source: lesson L-adfb33

A catalogue of regular expressions (email, IBAN, customer number, salutation) ran over all 722 lessons and reported 44 suspected cases — 44 of them false positives ("Diagnose" in the sense of failure diagnosis). The real case only surfaced through a positive control using known names from the corpus: one lesson carried a clear name from the test corpus itself. It described a data leak and was one.

Hence the rule that has applied since: evidence needs the shape of the datum, not its content. A lesson that requires a proper name is not fully distilled. </details>

<details> <summary><b>8. What we cannot claim — and why it is here</b></summary>

• When: blind run as of 2026-08-09T21:21:34, competitive measurement 2026-08-09T10:05:52 (+02:00)
• Models in the blind run: gemma4:12b and gemma4:e4b, 3 runs each, computed locally
• Sources: runs/wissensnutzen_blind.json, runs/antwortqualitaet_2026-08-09.md, runs/wettbewerb_2026-08-09.md

There is an A/B run that looks good: a small model proposes a documented anti-pattern without injected knowledge, and the correct solution with it.

On inspection: no generating script for those files exists in the repository, and the comparable earlier setup was demonstrably tautological — the query had been hand-built from the known solution, and the injected text contained the solution verbatim. What was measured was "does it help to put the right answer into the prompt".

The rebuild over the real retrieval path tokenises the task text itself and searches with it. There, the same task reads trefferguete: false: the store did not find the relevant lesson.

The case belongs here because it shows the direction: the measurement was rebuilt so that it can fail — and it failed immediately. For context, the project's own competitive measurement: retrieval quality 7 of 35 (20 %), while standard hybrid RAG reaches roughly 91 % Recall@10 in production reports from the same year. If all you need is retrieval, standard components serve you better. </details>

What it explicitly is NOT

No anonymisation · no encryption · no BSI certification · no complete protection against prompt injection · no multi-user operation.

Each point is spelled out in docs/GRENZEN.md — together with what is built instead, and where that in turn stops. This list matters more than any feature list, because it determines trust.

Further reading

File	Contents
docs/AUFBAU.md	layout, vectors, backup and restore
docs/GRENZEN.md	what brainlehr does not do, in detail
docs/FREMDBESTAENDE.md	licence status of third-party corpora (NASA LLIS, BSI, open sources)
docs/adr/	decisions with rationale and abort condition
CONTRIBUTING.md	contribution process and CLA

Documentation, commit messages and code comments are in German; this README and the contribution process are in English. The identifiers you will meet are glossed above under A note on the German identifiers.

Contributing

Issue first, then code. Every pull request needs the signed CLA from CONTRIBUTING.md (§3, version 2026-08-10) and a DCO sign-off per commit (git commit -s).

Every contribution needs a check that fails before the change and passes after. A test that was green from the start only proves it does not touch the change.

The CLA grants the project owner rights beyond the AGPLv3 so the project can also be licensed commercially. It is not reviewed by a lawyer, and that is stated where you agree to it — not hidden. If that goes too far for you, say so in the issue: bug reports, reproductions, measurements and documentation need no CLA at all.

Licence

GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 (LICENSE), plain- language summary in LICENSE_FAQ.md.

Private, academic and open-source use: free, without restriction. Anyone distributing a modified version or operating it as a network service publishes their source under the AGPLv3 as well. For inclusion in closed products, a commercial licence is available.

Two files carry their own licence — declared, not accidental: see NOTICE.

The CLA is in CONTRIBUTING.md §3, not in LICENSE — the AGPL text may not be modified ("changing it is not allowed", its own header). NOTICE lists it alongside the licence.