Why Move42
A requirement is a board. The contract defines legal play. The referee decides what worked.
state → legal action → external consequence → preserved experience.
The proposed output changes from an answer or score to an independently runnable method. The learning target is the distribution of later executable proposals across requirements.
AlphaGo’s Move 37 became shorthand for a machine finding a powerful move inside a fixed game. Move42 asks whether the action itself can become a complete executable algorithm for a new requirement.
Where search occurs
Where search occurs
Search now. Learn for later. Or combine both.
AutoResearch improves through a proposal–execution–inspection–retry loop on the current requirement.
Move42 aims to improve the proposal distribution across requirements, so the first executable move itself becomes learnable.
Hybrids remain possible; the distinction is where search occurs and what persists between tasks.
Evidence boundary. The current record does not measure superiority over research agents, task-time speedup, or an admitted prospective strict first move.
The game we are trying to build
- 01
Board
The requirement plus every permitted input, state transition, and resource boundary.
Encode the requirement and permitted state before any proposal is made. - 02
Move
One complete executable algorithm whose outputs can be independently reproduced.
Define the runnable artifact, interface, and terminal outputs that count as a move. - 03
Rules
The legality contract that rejects shortcuts, leakage, hidden state, and invalid resources.
Close shortcut and leakage paths before play, then make every violation an explicit failure. - 04
Referee
An external consequence-based evaluator that executes the move and records success or a named failure.
Build the referee outside model self-assessment and bind its identity to every outcome. - 05
Memory
Canonical success and failure receipts that can supervise later proposals across requirements.
Preserve receipts, train later proposals, and separately freeze a true one-proposal prospective evaluation.
What does this mean?
Vision · Compiler game
- Board
- A source program, target semantics, architecture, and optimization contract.
- Move
- A complete transformation or optimization algorithm that produces executable output.
- Referee
- Correctness suites, resource limits, and consequence-based performance measurements.
A design horizon, not a finding of the current regression study.
Vision · Control game
- Board
- A control requirement, observable plant state, hard constraints, and permitted actuators.
- Move
- A complete control algorithm that can be executed against the declared interface.
- Referee
- Constraint violations, stability, resource use, and measured physical consequence.
A design horizon, not evidence of autonomous control performance.
Vision · Experimental game
- Board
- An apparatus, measurement protocol, budget, safety envelope, and experimental objective.
- Move
- A complete executable experiment schedule and analysis method.
- Referee
- Predeclared measurements, explicit failure outcomes, and independently preserved receipts.
A design horizon, not an experimental result reported here.
Vision · Scientific-design game
- Board
- A scientific question, admissible evidence, interventions, and falsification criteria.
- Move
- A complete executable design for collecting and analyzing the next evidence.
- Referee
- Preregistered consequence tests that can reject as well as support the proposed method.
A design horizon, not a claim of causal or scientific discovery.
What we publish
The site contains the algorithm-first flagship, a purpose-designed editorial brief, the active immutable v1 paper, the complete seven-act mirror, the full recorded-move atlas, separated evidence classes, archive-bound provenance, and explicit limitations. There is no signup, analytics, contact submission, public mutation endpoint, or hidden application backend.
What remains unproved
The historical record does not establish prospective one-proposal performance, expected future win rate, universal superiority, or safe autonomous use. Those boundaries are part of the thesis, not footnotes to it.