docs(assessment,governance): record the adopted docket and the standing philosophy
Shay adopted twelve rulings, struck two, and ratified the ADR-0252 §5 NO-GO.
For several hours afterwards the packet still said PENDING fourteen times,
while PR-3 and PR-3b had already executed against R-7. That is precisely the
failure this arc is about — a record contradicting reality at a load-bearing
point — committed inside the arc whose subject is that failure, and it was
caught by a question rather than by any instrument. Fixing it is the first
item here; the rest of the commit exists so the same gap cannot reopen by
context loss.
50-rulings.md
All fourteen statuses replaced. Twelve carry RULED <choice> with the date
and the deciding authority; R-10 (discharged before the arc) and R-14
(dissolved by N-9) are struck. An adoption block at the head records the
choices, the strikes, the §5 ratification, and the corrected execution
order, plus which rulings have already executed.
50-execution-plan.md
New §2.1 — the adopted docket. The twelve choices, and the execution order
as a ranked table stating why each item sits where it does. The packet
ordered by register number, which interleaves cheap record repairs with
expensive capability work and puts the two zero-risk ADR amendments last;
the corrected order is by what each item unblocks, cheapest first in tier.
Three things that lived only in conversation are now written down:
- the claims register is HELD, deliberately, with its entry criterion —
G-22 showed CLAIMS.md can publish a superseded digest for two days, and
an index over untrustworthy indexed things is the H-9 pattern;
- gate width is promoted from a parenthetical to PR-4b, sized, with
`teaching` recommended alone and the reason being evidence (G-22) rather
than taste — a parenthetical is how fifteen suites became unreachable
without anyone choosing it;
- Track A's ratification creates an obligation the verdict document cannot
discharge: ADR-0252 §6 retires the surface organs "until the
structure-mapper proves out," names no replacement for the NO-GO branch,
and is an instruction rather than a research note. A live instruction
that can never fire is a dead instrument.
Two places where I was about to state a ruling more strongly than it was
made, corrected rather than smoothed over:
- R-11 B is "measure, then re-ask." It authorizes no gate. It owes a
measurement AND a second ruling, and a ruled-but-inert item looks exactly
like a settled one at a glance.
- R-8 C was recommended "with a floor from A applied to the entailed
capability only" and N was never named. PR-14 must carry a proposed N with
its consequence, or land entailed as explicitly unlicensable-pending-N.
Shipping without a floor would license entailment on nine cases through an
omission — the exact outcome C exists to prevent.
Also: §0 corrected from seven corrections to nine (N-8, N-9 were added
during execution and the heading never moved); definition-of-done item 5
struck, because N-9 killed both its halves — smoke.yml parity is not a goal
under AGENTS.md:280, and "no test file hides in full" is unreachable at 747
files without ceremony that changes nothing about what executes.
30-gap-register.md
G-7's open half is 15, not 19: PR-3b took it there by deletion, which costs
no gate time. Points at PR-4b.
AGENTS.md
Nine standing philosophies under the reasoning protocol, per CLAUDE.md's
rule that governance and memory live here. They are the generalization of
what this arc actually cost: less is more; master the small details and the
large ones do not form; a mechanism whose failure state is indistinguishable
from its success state is not a guarantee; a record that contradicts nothing
beats one that impresses; consecutive unclear problems mean the frame is
wrong, not the fix; be quick to investigate yourself, and record the error
next to the fix rather than overwriting it; volume of work is not a licence
for lower diligence; fix what you find or name why not; let the tree settle,
then run the gate once.
Documentation only — no runtime behavior, no test, no pin changes.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wcw2pnMBwyvmNyQg4uPEt4
This commit is contained in:
Claude
parent
d0bedfc198
commit
e6a3038335
5 changed files with 172 additions and 38 deletions
65
AGENTS.md
65
AGENTS.md
|
|
@ -214,6 +214,71 @@ that proves the change before declaring it done.
|
|||
- Shipping changes that can't be connected to the cognitive model → architectural
|
||||
drift away from CORE's mission
|
||||
|
||||
### Standing philosophy (2026-07-28)
|
||||
|
||||
Governing stance, adopted after the macro→micro assessment arc. The protocol
|
||||
above says *how* to work; this says *what to aim at* when the protocol leaves
|
||||
room. Where they appear to conflict, these win — they are the reason the
|
||||
protocol has the shape it does.
|
||||
|
||||
**1. Less is more. Quality over quantity.**
|
||||
The best part is no part; the best mechanism is the one deleted. Every name,
|
||||
alias, flag, suite, and document is something that has to be kept true forever.
|
||||
Prefer removing to adding, and prefer shrinking a gap by deletion (costs
|
||||
nothing) over closing it by addition (costs forever).
|
||||
|
||||
**2. Master the little details and the big ones handle themselves.**
|
||||
This is not a metaphor about care — it is a claim about causation. Large
|
||||
architectural failures in this repo have consistently decomposed into small,
|
||||
individually-boring divergences that nobody closed. Get the small ones exactly
|
||||
right and the large ones do not form.
|
||||
|
||||
**3. A mechanism whose failure state is indistinguishable from its success
|
||||
state is not a guarantee.**
|
||||
The dominant defect class here: a curated suite no gate invokes, a pin never
|
||||
observed failing, a digest nothing re-derives, a verdict on an unmerged
|
||||
branch, a decision recorded only in conversation. All of them look exactly
|
||||
like working. **Red before green** — if you cannot make a new pin fail on
|
||||
purpose, you have not shipped a guarantee, you have shipped a story about one.
|
||||
|
||||
**4. Prefer a record that contradicts nothing to a record that impresses.**
|
||||
A document, docstring, banner, or status field that disagrees with the code at
|
||||
a load-bearing point is worse than its absence, because it converts *"I should
|
||||
check"* into *"I already checked."* Recorded prose with no re-derivable
|
||||
artifact is testimony, not evidence. When a record and reality diverge, that
|
||||
is a defect with the same severity as a wrong answer.
|
||||
|
||||
**5. Consecutive unclear problems are a signal to stop and look wider.**
|
||||
One surprising failure is a bug. Several in a row that are not individually
|
||||
obvious means the frame is wrong. Stop patching, step back, and ask what the
|
||||
failures have in common before writing another fix. Almost always the answer
|
||||
is that there is too much going on, not too little.
|
||||
|
||||
**6. Be quick to be humble about mistakes, and quick to investigate yourself
|
||||
for them. Always.**
|
||||
When a result is challenged, check your own work before defending it. When you
|
||||
were wrong, say so plainly, fix it, and **record the error next to the fix**
|
||||
rather than overwriting the history so that the tree looks clean. An arc's
|
||||
self-correction chain is the strongest evidence it has; deleting a mistake
|
||||
deletes that evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
**7. Do not cut corners because the plan is large.**
|
||||
Volume of work is not a licence for lower diligence — it is the condition that
|
||||
makes diligence load-bearing. Meticulousness is cheapest exactly when it feels
|
||||
most expensive.
|
||||
|
||||
**8. Fix what you find, when you find it.**
|
||||
Do not leave a discovered defect unfixed and unrecorded on the grounds that it
|
||||
is off-topic. The two exceptions, both explicit: work a later planned item is
|
||||
*expected* to fix (say so, and name the item), and work that requires an
|
||||
authority you do not hold (say so, and prepare it so the decision costs one
|
||||
word).
|
||||
|
||||
**9. Let the tree settle, then run the gate once.**
|
||||
Never mutate the working tree while a validation run is in flight — the result
|
||||
describes a tree that no longer exists, and you will not notice. Land all
|
||||
edits, let it settle, run once, read the whole output.
|
||||
|
||||
## Repository topology discipline
|
||||
Before calling a directory, module, or file stale/redundant, classify its
|
||||
intrinsic role:
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -94,6 +94,8 @@ Pin 1 exists because the two gates have **already** drifted (see H-12): the loca
|
|||
|
||||
**What pin 3 deliberately does not do — and what is now Shay's to decide:** *which* of the 19 belong on the gate. That costs gate time and is a real decision. `teaching` is the obvious first candidate: it just shipped a red ratification pin that no gate ran. Recorded as the open half of this entry.
|
||||
|
||||
**The gap is 15, not 19, and the open half is now a scheduled plan item.** PR-3b (Wave 1, per R-7) deleted four aliases with zero `--suite` references anywhere — `refusal`, `margin`, `rotor`, `inner-loop` — taking the curated set 21 → 17 and the unreachable set **19 → 15, by deletion**, which costs no gate time at all. That is the ratchet turning the way it is meant to. The remaining fifteen are each named in AGENTS.md, CLI help, a README or an ADR, so deletion is not available for them and promotion is the only way the number falls further. The decision was a parenthetical in this entry and in PR-4 — which is precisely how fifteen suites came to be unreachable without anyone choosing it — so it is now **PR-4b** in `50-execution-plan.md` §4, sized, recommended (`teaching` alone, first), and prepared so ruling costs one word.
|
||||
|
||||
*One real gap the entry was circling, now fixed:* the parity pin lived in `fast`, which the pre-push gate does not run — **the pin guarding the gate did not run on the gate**. It is now in `smoke`.
|
||||
**Evidence:** `tests/test_suite_membership.py`; `tests/full_only_baseline.txt`; `tests/test_cli_test_suites.py:49`; `50fa287d`; `AGENTS.md:275-280`. · **Authority:** discharged mechanically; **no R-14 ruling is owed** for any of it.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -3,25 +3,27 @@
|
|||
**Planner:** Opus 5 · 2026-07-27 · verified at `forgejo/main` @ `ed06dd64`
|
||||
**Governs:** everything in `30-gap-register.md` (G-1…G-21) and `31-hindrance-audit.md` (H-1…H-14), sequenced by `40-assessment.md` §6.
|
||||
**Method:** `docs/conceptualizing_engineering_mastery.md` — scrub → **delete** → simplify/enforce → accelerate → automate last. Nothing is automated that Waves 0–3 have not proven.
|
||||
**Status (2026-07-28, at `39331dbc`):** **every plan item that needs neither a ruling nor an ADR is landed.**
|
||||
**Status (2026-07-28, at `d0bedfc1`):** **Wave 0 is closed.** Twelve rulings adopted, two stricken, the §5 NO-GO ratified — recorded in `50-rulings.md`. Every plan item that needed neither a ruling nor an ADR was already landed; the ruling-gated items are now *unblocked and owed*, in the order fixed in §2.1 below.
|
||||
|
||||
| Landed | Blocked, and on what |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| PR-0 ruling packet (#140) · PR-1 record amendments · R-10 discharged (#138 merged) | PR-2, PR-3 — **R-7**, plus CR-1/CR-2 decisions that do not yet exist |
|
||||
| **Track A — ADR-0252 §5 run to NO-GO**, criterion pre-registered, artifact + digest committed | PR-5 — **R-3, R-4** |
|
||||
| PR-4 membership ratchet · PR-6 three doctrine pins · PR-7 M2 trust table · PR-9 count-the-swallow | PR-8 — a small ADR (H-3/G-20) · PR-10 — a refactor ADR (H-4) |
|
||||
| H-13 (served-marker defect) · H-8e (closure docstring) | PR-11 — **R-2, R-9** · PR-12 — **R-13** · PR-14 — **R-8** |
|
||||
| **Closed:** G-7, G-9, H-7, H-11, H-13, H-8e · **Answered:** G-1 · **Discharged:** H-10 | Tracks B–E — the above, plus §5 ratification |
|
||||
| PR-0 ruling packet (#140) · PR-1 record amendments · R-10 discharged (#138 merged) | PR-2 — CR-1/CR-2 design briefs that do not yet exist (**not** a ruling) |
|
||||
| **Track A — ADR-0252 §5 run to NO-GO**, criterion pre-registered, artifact + digest committed, **verdict ratified 2026-07-28** | PR-8 — a small ADR (H-3/G-20) · PR-10 — a refactor ADR (H-4) |
|
||||
| PR-4 membership + reachability ratchets · PR-6 three doctrine pins · PR-7 M2 trust table · PR-9 count-the-swallow | PR-12 — an ADR **amendment** (R-13 authorizes it; the amendment is still owed) |
|
||||
| PR-3 + PR-3b (**R-7**, Wave 1) · H-13 (served-marker defect) · H-8e (closure docstring) · G-22 (main was red; `CLAIMS.md` stale) | Track B — the fabrication ADR (standing instruction, unchanged) |
|
||||
| **Closed:** G-7, G-9, G-22, H-7, H-11, H-13, H-8e · **Answered:** G-1 · **Discharged:** H-10 | Track C — invention, deliberately last |
|
||||
|
||||
**New this arc, not in the original assessment:** **N-8** (the §5 experiment had already returned GO twice, on unmerged branches, both unsound), **N-9** (the gate "drift" was a recorded decision — PR-4's pin 1 **withdrawn** rather than built, R-14 dissolved), **G-21** (the math reader decides **1.0%** of `holdout_dev/v1`), **H-13**, **H-14**, **H-8e**.
|
||||
**New this arc, not in the original assessment:** **N-8** (the §5 experiment had already returned GO twice, on unmerged branches, both unsound), **N-9** (the gate "drift" was a recorded decision — PR-4's pin 1 **withdrawn** rather than built, R-14 dissolved), **G-21** (the math reader decides **1.0%** of `holdout_dev/v1`), **G-22** (`main` was red before the arc, and `CLAIMS.md` published a superseded evidence digest for two days), **H-13**, **H-14**, **H-8e**.
|
||||
|
||||
**What has not moved, stated plainly:** comprehension breadth and proof-of-life. The reader is still 19 constructions wide and decides 1.0% of the held-out corpus; the 5000-beat soak is still prose with no pinned digest. Everything landed this arc is enforcement and evidence machinery. PR-11, PR-12, PR-14 and Track B are where capability moves, and all four are ruling-gated.
|
||||
**What has not moved, stated plainly:** comprehension breadth and proof-of-life. The reader is still 19 constructions wide and decides 1.0% of the held-out corpus; the 5000-beat soak is still prose with no pinned digest. Everything landed this arc is enforcement and evidence machinery. PR-11, PR-12, PR-14 and Track B are where capability moves — and after the rulings, **none of them is blocked on a question any more.** Three are blocked on work.
|
||||
|
||||
**The one strategic finding of the whole arc, stated once here so it is not lost in the registers:** every defect found this arc — G-22, H-13, H-14, N-8, N-9, the fourteen `PENDING` statuses, the four unused suite aliases, the fifteen unreachable ones — is a **record/reality divergence**, not a substrate defect. Nothing found says the geometry is wrong. The recurring class is **mechanisms whose failure state is indistinguishable from their success state**: a suite nobody runs, a pin nobody sees fail, a digest nobody re-derives, a verdict on an unmerged branch, a ruling adopted in conversation. That is what Waves 1–2 are for, and it is why the correct response to "too much going on" is deletion and enforcement rather than redesign.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 0. Seven corrections to the assessment, found while sizing and executing this plan
|
||||
## 0. Nine corrections to the assessment, found while sizing and executing this plan
|
||||
|
||||
The assessment's authority rests on its self-correction chain — *"nothing in the chain was ever caught by re-reading documents"* (§8). Planning it produced seven more, all caught by reading code, workflows, and the ADRs' own supersession banners. Four of them change planned work: two change the design of the highest-leverage mechanical item, one **deletes a Wave-3 PR** because the work already shipped, and one **halves the severity** of a claim this plan made in its own first draft.
|
||||
The assessment's authority rests on its self-correction chain — *"nothing in the chain was ever caught by re-reading documents"* (§8). Planning it produced seven more and executing it produced two, all caught by reading code, workflows, branch tips, and the ADRs' own supersession banners. Six of them change planned work: two change the design of the highest-leverage mechanical item, one **deletes a Wave-3 PR** because the work already shipped, one **halves the severity** of a claim this plan made in its own first draft, one **withdraws a pin** this plan proposed re-adding after a prior agent had removed it for recorded reasons, and one **re-scopes a whole track** from *run the experiment* to *run it soundly*.
|
||||
|
||||
| # | Corrects | Effect on the plan |
|
||||
|---|---|---|
|
||||
|
|
@ -194,7 +196,39 @@ The assessment directory's own corrections (N-1…N-7 applied to `30-gap-registe
|
|||
|
||||
### Track A opens here (see §6) — the §5 experiment does not wait for Wave 1.
|
||||
|
||||
**Wave 0 exit:** every G/H entry has either a settled ruling or a named owner-wave. No later item is blocked on an unasked question.
|
||||
**Wave 0 exit:** every G/H entry has either a settled ruling or a named owner-wave. No later item is blocked on an unasked question. **Met 2026-07-28.**
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2.1 The adopted docket — twelve rulings, and the order they execute in
|
||||
|
||||
**Ruled 2026-07-28 by Shay, explicitly.** Full text, options, and per-option diffs stay in [`50-rulings.md`](50-rulings.md); this section exists so the *plan* carries the order and the consequences, and so neither survives only in a conversation. (It did survive only in a conversation for several hours — see the note at the head of the ruling packet. That is the failure mode this arc is about, committed inside the arc.)
|
||||
|
||||
**Adopted:** R-1 A · R-2 B · R-3 A · R-4 A · R-5 A · R-6 A · R-7 A · R-8 C · R-9 A · R-11 B · R-12 A/A · R-13 A
|
||||
**Stricken:** R-10 (discharged before the arc — #138 merged) · R-14 (dissolved by N-9)
|
||||
**Also ratified:** the ADR-0252 §5 **NO-GO** verdict.
|
||||
|
||||
### The order, and why it is this order
|
||||
|
||||
The packet's original order was by register number. That is the wrong axis: it interleaves cheap record repairs with expensive capability work and puts the two ADR-record amendments last, when they are the only items that cost nothing and unblock reading everything else. The corrected order is **by what each item unblocks, cheapest first inside each tier.**
|
||||
|
||||
| Rank | Ruling(s) | Deliverable | Size | Why here |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| 1 | **R-12** | Two ratified-ADR record amendments — ADR-0146 (daemon) and ADR-0252 ("34 organs" basis footnote). Text already drafted in the packet | **S** | Zero-risk, changes no decision, and both ADRs are read as authority by everything downstream. A record that contradicts the code is the arc's whole subject. |
|
||||
| 2 | ~~R-7~~ | ~~Register supersession~~ | — | **EXECUTED** — PR-3 + PR-3b, landed 2026-07-28. Listed so the order stays readable. |
|
||||
| 3 | **R-3 + R-4** | PR-5 — the flag register (`docs/specs/flag_register.md`), all 32 `RuntimeConfig` booleans, profiles as units, the pin that forbids an unregistered flag, `accrue_realized_knowledge` added to the daemon profile, the two N-6 docstrings corrected | **M** | R-3 is a **hard gate on Wave 4**; nothing automates until it resolves. R-4 is the mechanism R-3's fix must land inside, so they are one PR. |
|
||||
| 4 | **R-9 + R-2** | PR-11 — the L10 soak to a committed artifact with a pinned `deterministic_digest`, the ruled cadence, and R-2's "now" paragraph written into the contract *before* the re-run | **M** | Proof of life. R-2 must land first inside the same PR or the soak answers a design question by accident (the packet's own reasoning for R-2). |
|
||||
| 5 | **R-13** | PR-12 — distinct-evidence counting at the seal boundary + the honest re-count of 25 ratified bands, demotions applied, `test_volume_honesty.py` moved in the same PR | **L** | Needs an ADR **amendment** (0175/0263 lineage). R-13 authorizes the demotions; it does not write the amendment. Expect served capability to shrink — that is the mechanism working. |
|
||||
| 6 | **R-8** | PR-14 — the outcome-mix rule, then seal `curriculum_serve_ledger.json`. Four bands qualify on sealing (N-5) | **M** | Depends on PR-12's counting basis. This is the entire throughput frontier, one ruling wide. |
|
||||
| 7 | **R-1 · R-5 · R-6 · R-11** | Posture statements: efferent-action deferral with entry criterion (G-12) · the identity-enforcement discrimination bar (G-11) · non-text ingest deferral with the falsification bench as its standard (G-17) · **R-11 B — measure before gating** | **S** each | All four are prose with a criterion. None blocks anything; leaving them silent is the cost. They go last because they are the only items where lateness is cheap. |
|
||||
|
||||
**R-11's measurement is owed now, not later — and R-11 is the one adopted ruling that does not end in a decision.** Option B is *measure first, then re-ask*: an instrumentation PR (counts only, no behavior change) reporting how often the out-of-inventory reading path is taken on the practice corpora, after which **R-11 is put back to Shay with the number in hand.** So the docket owes two things here, not one: the measurement, and the second ruling. Until the number exists, R-11 has been ruled and nothing follows from it — which is a state worth naming, because a ruled-but-inert item is indistinguishable from a settled one at a glance. It lands with the R-1/R-5/R-6 batch at the latest and may land sooner, since the instrumentation is small and independent.
|
||||
|
||||
### Two items the docket added that were not rulings
|
||||
|
||||
**The claims register — HELD, deliberately, on my recommendation.** Proposed in the same message as the adoptions: a register mapping each pinned claim to the lane that verifies it. It is a good idea and it is **not scheduled yet.** The reason is G-22: `CLAIMS.md` published a superseded evidence digest for two days because one commit updated the lane and the verifier but not the published claim. A register built *now* would be a second surface with the same failure mode and no evidence yet that the first one holds. **Entry criterion:** it is scheduled once Wave 1's deletions and Wave 2's ratchets have gone one full arc without a record/reality divergence being found by hand. Building the index before the indexed things are trustworthy is exactly the pattern H-9 names.
|
||||
|
||||
**Gate width — promoted to a first-class plan item.** See PR-4b in §4. It was a parenthetical ("still open, and it is a decision") and parentheticals are how the fifteen got there.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -240,7 +274,17 @@ The cut is much smaller than the sprawl suggests, and the measurement is why. `c
|
|||
|
||||
**STILL OWED — a third pin, found by this arc's own full-tree run (G-7 reopened-partly).** The ratchet closes membership; it does not close **execution**. The run found `tests/test_ratification_ceremony.py` red on `main`, **in a curated suite (`teaching`) that no gate invokes** — the gate runs `smoke` + warmed_session + `deductive`. Membership was satisfied and bought nothing, which is this item's own hollow-gate objection turned on its own fix. **Pin 3 — LANDED 2026-07-28**, `tests/test_suite_reachability.py`. Measured **21 curated suites, 2 gate-reachable**; the gap is **19**, not the handful first estimated. Shipped as baseline + ratchet for the same reason the membership pin was: 19 justifications written in one sitting is ceremony, not a decision. Freezes the gap, fails on growth, both directions enforced, declared gate set verified against `pre-push`/`local-ci.sh` so it cannot go vacuous. Two sabotages observed red.
|
||||
|
||||
**Still open, and it is a decision rather than an engineering task:** which of the 19 go on the gate. `teaching` first — it shipped a red ratification pin that no gate ran (G-22).
|
||||
### PR-4b · Gate width — which of the fifteen go on the gate · **S** · *new, Wave 2* · G-7
|
||||
|
||||
Promoted out of a parenthetical in PR-4, because a parenthetical is how fifteen suites got to be unreachable without anyone deciding it. Pin 3 froze the gap; **it deliberately does not choose**, and an unmade choice does not improve by being frozen.
|
||||
|
||||
**The decision, stated so it costs one reply.** The gate today is `smoke` + warmed_session + `deductive`. Fifteen curated suites have members and no gate caller. Every promotion costs gate time on every push, forever, which is why this is Shay's and not mine.
|
||||
|
||||
**Recommended first promotion: `teaching`, alone.** The evidence is not a preference — it is G-22: `tests/test_ratification_ceremony.py` was **red on `main`**, was **in `teaching`**, and no gate ran it. That is the only suite in the fifteen with a demonstrated escape. Promote it, measure the added wall-clock, and let the next promotion be argued from that measurement rather than from taste.
|
||||
|
||||
**Explicitly not recommended:** promoting all fifteen. That is the ceremony failure this plan rejected twice already (749 exclusion reasons; nineteen justifications in one sitting). Nor is deletion the default — PR-3b deleted the four with *zero* references anywhere; the remaining fifteen are all named in AGENTS.md, CLI help, READMEs or ADRs, so deleting them breaks documented commands.
|
||||
|
||||
**Verification:** `teaching` invoked from `scripts/hooks/pre-push` and `local-ci.sh --tier gate`, `GATE_SUITES` updated, `teaching` removed from `UNREACHABLE_BASELINE` in the same edit (`test_suite_reachability.py` fails in both directions if either half is missed — it has already caught this author twice), and the ratchet's `<= 15` lowered to `<= 14`. The added gate seconds reported as a number in the PR body.
|
||||
|
||||
### PR-5 · The flag-default register · **M** · G-8/H-6
|
||||
`docs/specs/flag_register.md`: all **28** default-off flags plus the 4 default-on — current default, deliberate-posture vs accumulated-hesitancy, **what evidence flips it**, and named profiles (one-shot / eval / continuous-life) per R-4. Declared in the table, not the call site (ADR-0263 Rule 5). A pin asserts the register lists exactly the flags `core/config.py` defines — so a new flag cannot land unregistered. Includes the F-6 accrual resolution from R-3 and the N-6 docstring correction.
|
||||
|
|
@ -285,8 +329,12 @@ Distinct-evidence counting at the seal boundary: a replay refreshes, never incre
|
|||
### ~~PR-13 · Curriculum query-scoping~~ · **WITHDRAWN** · N-5
|
||||
Shipped as ADR-0264 R5, discharged 2026-07-26. The 16-premise cap does not exist in the running system. G-10 is re-scoped to R-8 alone.
|
||||
|
||||
### PR-14 · The earning ledger · **M** · G-10
|
||||
`chat/data/curriculum_serve_ledger.json` exists and is an *earning* ledger, under R-8's outcome-mix ruling. Four bands qualify the moment it is sealed (N-5). Depends on PR-12 (counting basis) and on R-8 — **no longer on any engineering prerequisite**.
|
||||
### PR-14 · The earning ledger · **M** · G-10 — *unblocked by R-8 C*
|
||||
`chat/data/curriculum_serve_ledger.json` exists and is an *earning* ledger. Four bands qualify the moment it is sealed (N-5). Depends on PR-12 (counting basis) — **no longer on any ruling and no longer on any engineering prerequisite**.
|
||||
|
||||
**Under R-8 C the deliverable is now specific:** two entries in `CAPABILITY_LEDGERS` — `unknown`-serving and `entailed`-serving licensed as **different capabilities on different evidence** — the mix rule declared in the table rather than at the call site (ADR-0263 Rule 5), an **ADR-0264 §5 amendment** recording the ruling, then the seal. The four bands license the thing they have actually demonstrated at 660 decisions (correct refusal); nothing licenses entailment on a maximum of 9 cases.
|
||||
|
||||
**One sub-question the ruling leaves open, stated rather than assumed.** The packet's recommendation was *"C, with a floor from A applied to the entailed capability only"* — and **N was never named.** Adopting C adopts the floor in principle; the number is not derivable from the evidence, because the whole point is that no band is near it (max entailed volume = 9). This PR must therefore either carry a proposed N with its consequence measured, or land the two capabilities with the entailed one explicitly unlicensable-pending-N. It may not quietly ship without a floor — that would license entailment on 9 cases through an omission, which is the exact outcome C exists to prevent.
|
||||
|
||||
### Track B · The fabrications and the widening — *gated, see §6*
|
||||
G-2's fix lands only under its ratified ADR (R-11 may add an interim defensive gate first). G-3's widening program is **shape-dependent on Track A's verdict** and does not start before it.
|
||||
|
|
@ -297,7 +345,7 @@ G-2's fix lands only under its ratified ADR (R-11 may add an interim defensive g
|
|||
|
||||
Waves are hygiene and enforcement. The frontiers are the project. Track A runs **in parallel with Wave 0**, because it is execution-authorized already and everything else gets cheaper once it returns.
|
||||
|
||||
### Track A · **Run ADR-0252 §5 to a verdict** · G-1/H-10 · **DONE 2026-07-28 — NO-GO, awaiting ratification**
|
||||
### Track A · **Run ADR-0252 §5 to a verdict** · G-1/H-10 · **DONE 2026-07-28 — NO-GO, RATIFIED 2026-07-28**
|
||||
Protocol followed as written: criterion pre-registered at `299c92be` **before** the run (that commit carries the thresholds as importable constants and no results); corpus built with provenance on every case; full experiment run; `docs/research/sme-experiment-verdict-797ebad5.md` written with the criterion, the run, the numbers, and the verdict; report artifact committed with a pinned `deterministic_digest`.
|
||||
|
||||
**Verdict: NO-GO**, and it is the well-controlled kind the ADR pre-declares as full credit. Structure-sensitivity fails at every attribute weight tested — not a knife-edge on a constant. The mechanism is stated in one sentence and measured rather than argued: *the similarity quotient that would deliver attribute-invariance is the same quotient that annihilates structural contrast.* An `add`-vs-`subtract` minimal pair — one entity, identical numbers, one relation kind changed — aligns at residual exactly `0.0`, its two configurations being related by a proper rotation. Sweeping the attribute weight, every regime in which the SME property survives is a regime in which attributes contribute nothing (AUC 1.00 → 0.83 → 0.69 as they start to matter).
|
||||
|
|
@ -306,6 +354,15 @@ Protocol followed as written: criterion pre-registered at `299c92be` **before**
|
|||
|
||||
**Two things the track found that were not on anyone's list.** (1) The experiment was **already run twice**, returning GO twice, on unmerged branches — see N-8; both verdicts are unsound and are voided by the verdict document. (2) The math reader decides **5 of 500** `holdout_dev/v1` cases (1.0%), all one skeleton, which is why §5.1's four-structure corpus was not extractable and is now registered as **G-21**.
|
||||
|
||||
**Ratified 2026-07-28, and it leaves one obligation the ADR itself cannot discharge.** ADR-0252 **§6 names an organ-retirement condition that a NO-GO makes unsatisfiable as written**: it retires the symbolic structure-mapping organs *on the strength of the geometric replacement*, and names **no replacement** for the NO-GO branch. A ratified NO-GO therefore has to be written back into the ADR or the ADR's §6 stands as a live instruction that can never fire — an instrument in the H-9 class, authoritative-looking and dead.
|
||||
|
||||
**Owed, and it is an amendment rather than a new decision (Shay's authority, drafted for one-word approval):**
|
||||
1. **§5 gains its verdict banner** — NO-GO, the run SHA, the report digest, the scope sentence (*point-position role encodings aligned by conformal Procrustes under similarity*, not every Cl(4,1) representation, and not the symbolic lane already in `evals/structure_mapping/`).
|
||||
2. **§6's retirement condition is amended to state the NO-GO branch explicitly**: the symbolic organs are **retained**, and the condition that would retire them is re-stated as *a demonstrated replacement passing the §5 criterion*, which no longer exists. Retiring a working organ because a *hypothesis about its replacement* was written down is precisely backwards.
|
||||
3. **The "34 organs" basis footnote** from R-12 lands in the same amendment — same file, same authority, one review instead of two.
|
||||
|
||||
*(Registered here rather than only in the verdict document because a verdict document is a research artifact and §6 is an instruction. The instruction is what has to change.)*
|
||||
|
||||
### Track B · **The reading** · G-2 → G-3 · **XL**
|
||||
Sequenced and gated: merge #138 (R-10) → fabrication ADR + ratification → the two known mutations land → **then** widen from 19, in whatever shape Track A's verdict dictates. G-16's latent defect class in `_inflect_predicate`'s aspect arms must be cleared *by* the widening program, not after it. This is the intelligence frontier and the largest capability gap to the telos.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -362,13 +419,15 @@ The arc closes when:
|
|||
2. Every H-1…H-14 entry is resolved, relocated to its better home, or explicitly accepted with a reason.
|
||||
3. ADR-0252 §5 has a recorded verdict and the §6 question is settled either way.
|
||||
4. A **committed** L10 soak artifact exists with a **pinned `deterministic_digest`**, and its pins run on a ruled cadence.
|
||||
5. `smoke.yml` and `TEST_SUITES["smoke"]` are mechanically identical, and no test file hides in `full`.
|
||||
6. The flag register exists and lists all 32 `RuntimeConfig` booleans, with no flag in `core/config.py` unlisted.
|
||||
7. No document **and no docstring** in the repository contradicts the code at a load-bearing point.
|
||||
8. Every card in `docs/assessment/` carries a `verified_at` no older than the last arc that touched its layer.
|
||||
5. ~~`smoke.yml` and `TEST_SUITES["smoke"]` are mechanically identical, and no test file hides in `full`.~~ **Superseded by N-9 and by PR-4's measurement.** Both halves were wrong. Gate parity with `smoke.yml` is not a goal — `AGENTS.md:280` makes the workflows dead signals, and the surviving direction has been pinned since before this assessment. And "no test file hides in `full`" is unreachable at 747 files without ceremony that changes nothing about what executes. **Replaced by:** the membership baseline only shrinks, the gate-unreachable baseline only shrinks, and both are enforced in both directions.
|
||||
6. **At least one gate-unreachable suite has been promoted onto the gate by decision** (PR-4b), with the added wall-clock recorded as a number.
|
||||
7. The flag register exists and lists all 32 `RuntimeConfig` booleans, with no flag in `core/config.py` unlisted.
|
||||
8. No document **and no docstring** in the repository contradicts the code at a load-bearing point.
|
||||
9. Every card in `docs/assessment/` carries a `verified_at` no older than the last arc that touched its layer.
|
||||
10. **Every ruling in `50-rulings.md` carries a status that matches what has actually executed** — the arc's own closing check, added because for several hours it did not.
|
||||
|
||||
**What does *not* close with this arc:** the widening program (G-3) and the chooser (G-4). Those are the next arc, and they should be entered with the registers clean, the paradigm decided, and the evidence loops turning — which is precisely what this plan buys.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
*Sequenced per `docs/conceptualizing_engineering_mastery.md`: scrub, delete, simplify, accelerate, automate last. Nothing above optimizes a thing that Wave 1 might delete, and nothing above automates a loop that Wave 3 has not proven turns. Seven corrections in §0 were found by reading code, workflows, and ADR supersession banners — none by re-reading the assessment.*
|
||||
*Sequenced per `docs/conceptualizing_engineering_mastery.md`: scrub, delete, simplify, accelerate, automate last. Nothing above optimizes a thing that Wave 1 might delete, and nothing above automates a loop that Wave 3 has not proven turns. Nine corrections in §0 were found by reading code, workflows, branch tips, and ADR supersession banners — none by re-reading the assessment.*
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -2,6 +2,14 @@
|
|||
|
||||
**Prepared by:** Opus 5 · 2026-07-27 · every claim verified at `forgejo/main` @ `ed06dd64`
|
||||
**Deciding authority:** Shay, for all fourteen.
|
||||
**RULED 2026-07-28 — twelve adopted, two stricken.** Recorded here because it was adopted in conversation and, for several hours, existed *only* there: the packet said `PENDING` fourteen times while PR-3 was already executing against R-7. That is H-8's failure mode — the record contradicting reality at a load-bearing point — committed inside the arc whose subject is that failure, and caught by Shay asking whether the plan docs were current.
|
||||
|
||||
**Adopted:** R-1 A · R-2 B · R-3 A · R-4 A · R-5 A · R-6 A · R-7 A · R-8 C · R-9 A · R-11 B · R-12 A/A · R-13 A.
|
||||
**Stricken:** R-10 (already discharged — #138 merged before the arc began) · R-14 (dissolved by N-9; the pin exists one-directionally by a recorded 2026-07-25 decision).
|
||||
**Also ratified:** the ADR-0252 §5 **NO-GO** verdict.
|
||||
|
||||
**Execution order (corrected):** R-12 → R-7 → R-3+R-4 → R-9+R-2 → R-13 → R-8 → R-1/R-5/R-6/R-11.
|
||||
**Executed so far:** R-7 (PR-3, PR-3b landed 2026-07-28).
|
||||
**Contract:** each ruling below is prepared so that answering it costs **one word**. The evidence is gathered, the options are enumerated, a recommendation is made with its reasoning, and the exact change that follows from each option is written out. Nothing here recommends reversing a ratified decision; R-12 amends two ADRs' *records* without touching either decision.
|
||||
|
||||
**How to rule:** reply with the item and your choice — e.g. `R-1 A · R-3 B · R-8 C`. Anything left unruled stays `PENDING` and blocks only the wave named in its **Blocks** line.
|
||||
|
|
@ -12,7 +20,7 @@
|
|||
|
||||
## R-1 · CR-3 efferent action — deferred, or out of telos?
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** G-12 · **Blocks:** nothing; leaving it silent is the cost.
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED A** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *deferred with the entry criterion named* · **Register:** G-12 · **Blocks:** nothing; leaving it silent is the cost.
|
||||
|
||||
**The question.** CORE's telos ends at articulate/learn/replay. AGI-grade generality ordinarily implies acting on the world. No system-level statement exists either way.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -34,7 +42,7 @@
|
|||
|
||||
## R-2 · CR-4 temporal self-location — the stance on "now"
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** G-13 · **Blocks:** PR-11 (the soak's contract paragraph).
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED B** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *beats govern cognition; wall-clock in telemetry only, pinned* · **Register:** G-13 · **Blocks:** PR-11 (the soak's contract paragraph).
|
||||
|
||||
**The question.** A continuous life experiences sequence and duration; determinism bans clocks from cognition. Both commitments are correct and their intersection is undesigned. The 24h+ no-drift requirement cannot be *stated* precisely without a stance.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -56,7 +64,7 @@
|
|||
|
||||
## R-3 · The F-6 accrual flag — incomplete set, or intended dormancy?
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** G-6 / H-6 · **Blocks:** Wave 4 (hard gate), PR-5.
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED A** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *incomplete flag set — add `accrue_realized_knowledge` to the daemon profile* · **Register:** G-6 / H-6 · **Blocks:** Wave 4 (hard gate), PR-5.
|
||||
|
||||
**The question.** `CONTINUOUS_LIFE_CONFIG_FLAGS` (`chat/always_on_daemon.py:45-49`) forces `persist_session_state`, `consolidate_determinations`, `strict_identity_continuity` — and **not** `accrue_realized_knowledge`. The only turn-path writer of realized facts sits behind the unforced flag. **As coded, the continuous life may consolidate an empty set.**
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -82,7 +90,7 @@ Two flags' documentation describes a production profile the production profile d
|
|||
|
||||
## R-4 · Flag profiles — one-shot / eval / continuous-life
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** G-8 / H-6 · **Blocks:** PR-5.
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED A** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *profiles + register + pin, 32 flags, incl. the `chain_depth` collapse candidate* · **Register:** G-8 / H-6 · **Blocks:** PR-5.
|
||||
|
||||
**The question.** `RuntimeConfig` defines **32 boolean fields: 28 default `False`, 4 default `True`** (`allow_cross_language_recall`, `use_salience`, `discourse_planner`, `deduction_serving_enabled`). Three are daemon-forced. No document states the set, which defaults are deliberate posture versus accumulated hesitancy, or what evidence would flip each. *(The assessment said "seventeen"; the real number is 28 — N-7. Two counts of the same set differing by eleven is itself the finding: nothing in the repo distinguishes capability flags from policy flags.)*
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -104,7 +112,7 @@ Two flags' documentation describes a production profile the production profile d
|
|||
|
||||
## R-5 · The identity-enforcement authorization bar
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** G-11 · **Blocks:** nothing; it makes an honest posture *stay* honest.
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED A** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *discrimination bar, corpus and floor named in advance* · **Register:** G-11 · **Blocks:** nothing; it makes an honest posture *stay* honest.
|
||||
|
||||
**The question.** `identity_wave_gate` is off and `identity_action_surface` is off and documented as **"NOT authorized for live activation."** That is a deliberate, well-reasoned posture. What is missing is the *criterion*: no document states what evidence would authorize live refusal.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -123,7 +131,7 @@ Two flags' documentation describes a production profile the production profile d
|
|||
|
||||
## R-6 · Non-text ingest — entry criterion, or explicit deferral?
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** G-17 · **Blocks:** nothing.
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED A** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *deferral with the falsification bench as the standard* · **Register:** G-17 · **Blocks:** nothing.
|
||||
|
||||
**The question.** 59 sensorium modules exist and reach no serving path. Projection heads do not exist. The position paper is honest about this. There is no entry criterion and no deferral ruling — so it reads as neither built nor deliberately postponed.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -143,7 +151,7 @@ Two flags' documentation describes a production profile the production profile d
|
|||
|
||||
## R-7 · Register supersession — this directory vs `docs/gaps.md` and the ratchet
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** H-9 · **Blocks:** PR-3.
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED A** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *supersede both; 7 OPEN items into G-5 — **EXECUTED, PR-3*** · **Register:** H-9 · **Blocks:** PR-3.
|
||||
|
||||
**The question.** `docs/gaps.md` is 26/26 closed with no entry from any 2026-06+ arc. The substrate-liveness ratchet is v5, stale since ~2026-05-24, with **7 OPEN items, all L10-chained**. The local system map is gitignored, 48 days stale, and carries a phantom `L12` stratum that exists nowhere else. Two dead registers plus a live one is worse than one live one.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -162,7 +170,7 @@ Two flags' documentation describes a production profile the production profile d
|
|||
|
||||
## R-8 · The curriculum outcome-mix rule — *now the sole blocker of an entire frontier*
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** G-10 · **Blocks:** PR-14, Track E in full.
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED C** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *separate `unknown`- and `entailed`-serving licenses* · **Register:** G-10 · **Blocks:** PR-14, Track E in full.
|
||||
|
||||
**The question changed shape since the register was written (N-5).** G-10 named the 16-premise compilation cap as the blocking engineering item. ADR-0264 §4.1 carries a banner directly beneath its own heading:
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -189,7 +197,7 @@ Two flags' documentation describes a production profile the production profile d
|
|||
|
||||
## R-9 · The soak's evidence standard and cadence
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** G-5 · **Blocks:** PR-11.
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED A** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *commit the artifact, pin the digest, change-triggered cadence* · **Register:** G-5 · **Blocks:** PR-11.
|
||||
|
||||
**The question changed shape since the register was written (N-4).** G-5 says *"the soak has never produced an artifact."* It has: `evals/l10_always_on/contract.md` §"The measured result" records a **5000-beat soak with a reboot at beat 2500** (landed 2026-07-19 in `aed273b1`) in which **all four predicates pass** — `versor_condition` flat at `1.389e-07` across all 5000 beats, vault bounded at 6 entries, convergence at beat 1 with the 4999-beat tail at rest, reboot resuming the same life with derived learning intact.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -215,7 +223,7 @@ Two flags' documentation describes a production profile the production profile d
|
|||
|
||||
## R-10 · PR #138 disposition
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** G-2 / G-3 · **Blocks:** Track B in full.
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED STRICKEN** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *already discharged — #138 merged pre-arc; `797ebad5` *is* that merge* · **Register:** G-2 / G-3 · **Blocks:** Track B in full.
|
||||
|
||||
**The question.** PR #138 — *"the reader/writer construction overlap is 6 — and the reader fabricates on 22 more"* — is open at `c69f9948` and is the only open PR in the repository. It is the measurement that established the reading frontier: writer 1739 constructions, reader 19, overlap **6**, fabrication on **22** beyond the verified inventory.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -237,7 +245,7 @@ Two flags' documentation describes a production profile the production profile d
|
|||
|
||||
## R-11 · An interim defensive gate for the fabrications?
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** G-2 · **Blocks:** nothing; it is a posture choice while the ADR is pending.
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED B** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *measure the out-of-inventory rate first, then re-ask* · **Register:** G-2 · **Blocks:** nothing; it is a posture choice while the ADR is pending.
|
||||
|
||||
**The question.** The fixes are held for their ADR. In the meantime CORE *serves* readings it fabricated — `member(every_dog, mammal)` from `every dog is a mammal`, and `asserted(furthermore)` recited back as a premise. Is there an interim posture that is neither the held fix nor the status quo?
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -259,7 +267,7 @@ Two flags' documentation describes a production profile the production profile d
|
|||
|
||||
## R-12 · The two ratified-ADR record amendments
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** G-15 / H-8 · **Blocks:** PR-1's completion (H-8 cannot close without this).
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED A/A** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *both drafted amendment texts applied as written* · **Register:** G-15 / H-8 · **Blocks:** PR-1's completion (H-8 cannot close without this).
|
||||
|
||||
**The question.** Two ratified ADRs' *records* contradict the code. Neither amendment changes a decision; both are text. Editing a ratified ADR is Shay's authority even when the edit changes nothing, which is why they are here and not in PR-1.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -292,7 +300,7 @@ Two flags' documentation describes a production profile the production profile d
|
|||
|
||||
## R-13 · Wilson re-count — authorize, knowing licenses may be demoted
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING · **Register:** H-1 / G-19 · **Blocks:** PR-12, and PR-14 through it.
|
||||
**Status:** **RULED A** — 2026-07-28, Shay (explicit adoption) · *authorize the re-count; **served capability will shrink, and that is the mechanism working*** · **Register:** H-1 / G-19 · **Blocks:** PR-12, and PR-14 through it.
|
||||
|
||||
**The question.** Wilson lower-bound licensing (θ_SERVE=0.99, ADR-0175 lineage) assumes independent trials. A replay of the same sealed case is one trial observed again, not a new one. Re-counting on a distinct-evidence basis will demote licenses.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -314,7 +322,7 @@ Two flags' documentation describes a production profile the production profile d
|
|||
|
||||
## R-14 · Gate parity — raise CI to the local suite, or lower the local suite to CI?
|
||||
|
||||
**Status:** PENDING — but **substantially dissolved by N-9 (2026-07-28); read this box before ruling.** · **Register:** N-3 / G-7 / H-12 · **Blocks:** nothing that is still open.
|
||||
**Status:** **STRICKEN 2026-07-28** — no ruling owed; dissolved by N-9 (2026-07-28); read this box before ruling.** · **Register:** N-3 / G-7 / H-12 · **Blocks:** nothing that is still open.
|
||||
|
||||
> **The premise below is wrong, and the question is much smaller than it appears.**
|
||||
>
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -14,14 +14,14 @@ A read-only, evidence-bearing assessment of CORE's cognitive-cycle design versus
|
|||
| [`04-phase2-findings.md`](04-phase2-findings.md) | 2 | Stage-coverage audit; corrections to Phase 0; findings F-1…F-5 |
|
||||
| [`20-component-cards/`](20-component-cards/) | 3 | Eight component cards: the four zero-subsystem zones + always-on, derivation organs, surface selection, attention |
|
||||
| [`05-phase3-findings.md`](05-phase3-findings.md) | 3 | Corrections C-1…C-5; findings F-6…F-10; the consolidated Phase-4 seed list |
|
||||
| [`30-gap-register.md`](30-gap-register.md) | 4 | **The live gap register** — 20 entries, 4 tiers, each with evidence + deciding authority (proposes superseding `docs/gaps.md`); four entries amended in Phase 6 |
|
||||
| [`30-gap-register.md`](30-gap-register.md) | 4 | **The live gap register** — 22 entries (G-21, G-22 added during execution), 4 tiers, each with evidence + deciding authority; **supersedes `docs/gaps.md` and the substrate-liveness ratchet** per R-7 |
|
||||
| [`31-hindrance-audit.md`](31-hindrance-audit.md) | 4 | Fourteen hindrances with fitness verdicts and better homes; eleven candidates examined and cleared (five in Phase 4, six in the 2026-07-28 external-assessment triage) |
|
||||
| [`40-assessment.md`](40-assessment.md) | 5 | The synthesis |
|
||||
| [`50-execution-plan.md`](50-execution-plan.md) | 6 | **The execution plan** — five waves + five frontier tracks over every G/H entry, with the dependency gates and the risks. §0 carries seven corrections to the assessment found while sizing it |
|
||||
| [`50-rulings.md`](50-rulings.md) | 6 | **The ruling packet** — R-1…R-14, each with evidence, options, a recommendation, and the exact diff that follows from each choice. Wave 0's deliverable |
|
||||
| [`50-execution-plan.md`](50-execution-plan.md) | 6 | **The execution plan** — five waves + five frontier tracks over every G/H entry, with the dependency gates and the risks. §0 carries **nine** corrections to the assessment found while sizing and executing it; **§2.1 carries the adopted ruling docket and its execution order** |
|
||||
| [`50-rulings.md`](50-rulings.md) | 6 | **The ruling packet** — R-1…R-14, each with evidence, options, a recommendation, and the exact diff that follows from each choice. **RULED 2026-07-28: twelve adopted, R-10 and R-14 stricken, §5 NO-GO ratified.** Wave 0's deliverable, and Wave 0 is closed |
|
||||
|
||||
**Maintenance contract** (from §8 of the synthesis): a card whose `verified_at` falls behind a load-bearing arc is testimony, not evidence. Update cards when their subsystems move, or this directory becomes the next dead instrument it was built to replace.
|
||||
|
||||
**Execution status (2026-07-28, `39331dbc`).** Phases 0–6 produced the evidence; the arc that followed executed everything in it that needed no ruling. Landed: Track A's §5 verdict (**NO-GO**, pre-registered), PR-4, PR-6, PR-7, PR-9, PR-1, and two defect fixes (H-13, H-8e). Closed: **G-7, G-9, H-7, H-11, H-13**. Added: **N-8, N-9, G-21, H-13, H-14**. Everything remaining is gated on **R-1…R-14** or on an ADR. See [`50-execution-plan.md`](50-execution-plan.md) §Status for the full board.
|
||||
**Execution status (2026-07-28, `d0bedfc1`).** Phases 0–6 produced the evidence; the arc that followed executed everything in it that needed no ruling, and **Wave 0 then closed**: twelve rulings adopted, two stricken, the §5 **NO-GO ratified**. Landed: Track A's §5 verdict (pre-registered), PR-4 (+ pin 3), PR-6, PR-7, PR-9, PR-1, PR-3 + PR-3b (Wave 1, per R-7), and three defect fixes (H-13, H-8e, G-22). Closed: **G-7, G-9, G-22, H-7, H-11, H-13**. Added: **N-8, N-9, G-21, G-22, H-13, H-14**. What remains is **owed work, not open questions** — see [`50-execution-plan.md`](50-execution-plan.md) §Status for the board and **§2.1 for the adopted docket and its execution order**.
|
||||
|
||||
**Standing note:** the PR #138 fabrication findings appear throughout as *measured & pinned, fix held for ADR + ratification* — recorded, never re-discovered, never fixed here, per explicit instruction.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue