Add planning-service contracts for program induction, counterexample search, and backtracking

[mdheller]

This PR adds a planning-service layer above the existing execution bridge.

Why:

• abstract reasoning needs typed planning operations, not hidden prompt behavior
• program induction, counterexample search, and backtracking must be visible and auditable
• the stable execution bridge remains narrow and unchanged

What this PR adds:

• PlanningService contract v0.1
• planning fixture lane with deterministic example payloads
• core request/response examples for program induction and counterexample search

What this PR does not do:

• it does not widen ExecutionBridgeService
• it does not redefine the stable transport profile

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Adds an initial PlanningService v0.1 contract and a set of deterministic planning fixtures intended to sit above the existing execution bridge, making planning operations auditable and reference-driven.

Changes:

• Introduces PlanningService contract v0.1 documentation.
• Adds planning fixture lane with request/response JSON examples for program induction and counterexample search.
• Adds a fixtures README describing intended fixture coverage.

Reviewed changes

Copilot reviewed 6 out of 6 changed files in this pull request and generated 4 comments.

Show a summary per file

File	Description
docs/contracts/planning-service-v0.1.md	Defines PlanningService goals, methods, and constraints for governed planning.
fixtures/planning/README.md	Describes the purpose and planned coverage of planning fixtures.
fixtures/planning/induce-program-candidate.request.json	Example request payload for InduceProgramCandidate.
fixtures/planning/induce-program-candidate.response.json	Example response payload for InduceProgramCandidate.
fixtures/planning/search-counterexample.request.json	Example request payload for SearchCounterexample.
fixtures/planning/search-counterexample.response.json	Example response payload for SearchCounterexample.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[Copilot]

This states the fixtures “preserve stable refs to scope, state, objective, and plan-node artifacts”, but the current fixtures in this directory only include scopeRef, planNodeRef/targetRef, etc. Consider either adding the referenced stateRef/objectiveVectorRef fields to the fixtures or adjusting this sentence to match what’s currently present.

Suggested change

	These fixtures preserve stable refs to scope, state, objective, and plan-node artifacts.
	These fixtures preserve stable refs to scope, plan-node, and target artifacts.

[Copilot]

In the “Input discipline” section you say planning methods must operate on “stable references”, but the first bullet is “planning scope ids” (and others are “refs”). This mixes identifier terms and could confuse implementers about whether values are expected to be ...Id or ...Ref strings. Consider making all bullets consistently *Ref (or consistently *Id) and aligning the wording accordingly.

[Copilot]

The “Rule” line mixes scopeId / planNodeId / objectiveId with stateRef, while the rest of the contract emphasizes stable *Ref values. Please standardize the terminology (either all *Ref or all *Id) so the contract is unambiguous about what is passed over the wire.

Suggested change

	Planning methods SHOULD preserve stable references back to `scopeId`, `stateRef`, `planNodeId`, and `objectiveId`.
	Planning methods SHOULD preserve stable references back to `scopeRef`, `stateRef`, `planNodeRef`, and `objectiveVectorRef`.

[Copilot]

The contract suggests attaching a counterexampleRef, but the fixture response uses counterexampleRefs (plural array). Please align the contract field naming with the intended wire shape (single ref vs list) to avoid incompatible implementations.

Suggested change

	- `counterexampleRef`
	- `counterexampleRefs`

[mdheller]

@copilot Fix failed checks

[Copilot]

@copilot Fix failed checks

Implemented fixes for the failed checks in commit 0383072. make verify now passes end-to-end (Rust tests, Go tests, and fixture verification). No UI changes were involved.

[mdheller]

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request any any failed tests

[Copilot]

@copilot resolve the merge conflicts in this pull request any any failed tests

Done. I merged origin/main, resolved the conflicts, and fixed the resulting test break by exporting the merged Rust v4 module (pub mod v4;). Addressed in commit 694d606 (merge commit 7156514 is also included). make verify now passes end-to-end on this branch. No UI changes were involved.