Designing for the Else: Generating AI Specifications That Handle What Is Not There

I can generate a working AI specification in about five minutes, and it runs across five different AI platforms without being rewritten for each one. This paper describes the method that got me there and how I checked that it was real. The method is a loop. Build a specification for a job, test it, then pull out the parts that were not about that job, strip the job-specific language, and put them where the next build will load them. Over fourteen builds the extraction got smaller each pass until the specification-writing work was nearly gone. What survived extraction was almost entirely else clauses: what to do when an answer is absent, unverifiable, or open to more than one reading. Handed an unspecified case, a model does not stop. It fills the gap fluently, and the filled version is indistinguishable from the real one. The failure is missing instructions rather than wrong ones. The method's weakest step is the extraction, and skipping it feels exactly like the loop converging. Version discipline kept separate from the loop is what let me find out that I had stopped. I checked my own reading of the corpus by giving the build records to a separate model session with the hypothesis withheld. The limits are stated plainly: one author, one domain, and no measured results.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-09-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22310072
Primary Topic
Topic Modeling
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

Designing for the Else: Generating AI Specifications That Handle What Is Not There

Robert E. Bankston
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Topic Modeling
preprint

Designing for the Else: Generating AI Specifications That Handle What Is Not There

Robert E. Bankston
preprint en

Abstract

I can generate a working AI specification in about five minutes, and it runs across five different AI platforms without being rewritten for each one. This paper describes the method that got me there and how I checked that it was real. The method is a loop. Build a specification for a job, test it, then pull out the parts that were not about that job, strip the job-specific language, and put them where the next build will load them. Over fourteen builds the extraction got smaller each pass until the specification-writing work was nearly gone. What survived extraction was almost entirely else clauses: what to do when an answer is absent, unverifiable, or open to more than one reading. Handed an unspecified case, a model does not stop. It fills the gap fluently, and the filled version is indistinguishable from the real one. The failure is missing instructions rather than wrong ones. The method's weakest step is the extraction, and skipping it feels exactly like the loop converging. Version discipline kept separate from the loop is what let me find out that I had stopped. I checked my own reading of the corpus by giving the build records to a separate model session with the hypothesis withheld. The limits are stated plainly: one author, one domain, and no measured results.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Quality Education
Topic Modeling
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.