From 0453a4cf700d2e199fde4911b3f5065f87be11a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: David F Glidden Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 18:47:59 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?=F0=9F=94=A7=20Auto-commit=20from=20sysupdate?= =?UTF-8?q?=20on=202026-08-13=2018:47?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- REVIEWED.md | 70 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 70 insertions(+) diff --git a/REVIEWED.md b/REVIEWED.md index b71a77f..544e412 100644 --- a/REVIEWED.md +++ b/REVIEWED.md @@ -1665,3 +1665,73 @@ and `CLAUDE.md` L61 to name existing material without the word 'retro-gated' and 'fixture'. Tag commits with REVIEWED-114. **The item remains OPEN and is not archived** until the steward's marked answer key exists as a dated file; only then may V4 be built against it and the fixture named as such. + +## REVIEWED-115 — PENDING-131 — The nested-voice arc: (a) authorized then voided, B7-alone lapsed, the gold-intersection reporter authorized +**Date:** 2026-08-10 +**Decision:** AUTHORIZED in part; one authorization VOIDED the same day; one conditional authorization LAPSED on its own condition. +**Notes:** Three dispositions from one exchange, recorded together because they were given together and because two of the three did not survive contact with the substrate. None of the three resulted in a corpus write. + +1. OPTION (a) — mark Mauss L926 as role: quotation — AUTHORIZED, then VOID. Granted on the narrow framing "make the Mauss sidecar internally consistent, one region joining twelve already using that mechanism in the same file", and explicitly non-precedential for option (c). Reading the passage before executing refuted that framing: all twelve existing quotation regions are markdown blockquotes, a whole-line construct, and the sidecar addresses by line range, while the Ranaipiri testimony is inline guillemets beginning at char 279 of a 1,427-char line, after Mauss's own attributing sentence. The available act would have fenced that sentence, which is the disambiguator the classification depends on. The authorization is VOID rather than pending: an executable authorization left standing in the record, whose factual basis is gone, is a trap for whoever next clears the backlog with no reason to re-read. + +2. B7 ALONE as the single-item proof of the R0 propose/unverified pattern — AUTHORIZED subject to three amendments, LAPSED on the second. The amendments were: re-state the voice attribution, which had been recorded on a typographic warrant the same day disproved; obtain an independent reading of whether "care" is the essay's vocabulary rather than Alexander's; and stamp what the proof does not establish. The second was checked and came back adverse — the word "care" occurs nowhere in pattern 24, and appears in 2 of the 26 March queries. The executor is the first reader and agrees with the challenge, which is not a second reader. No item in the eight currently qualifies. + +3. THE GOLD-INTERSECTION REPORTER — AUTHORIZED and BUILT (studium-engine 569e14c, scripts/gold_intersection.py). A reporter, never a blocker, on the ground that a blocking version run against L926 would have refused the pass and protected three fr citations that reading then showed were never legitimately gold. Three conditions, all met: the specification wording no longer parses as blocking; positive controls run on every invocation, not only under --selftest, because the ordinary output is a negative and the specific silent failure is address parsing drifting a gold file to zero regions; granularity declared line-level and printed on every clean result. Verified on the motivating case — L926 reports four intersections, exit 0. Five chavruta paratext and silence anchors report UNCHECKED, never clean. + +**If AUTHORIZED:** Already executed as recorded. Option (a) is not to be revived without a fresh proposal on a corrected basis; PENDING-131 Addendum 1 holds the reasoning. Tag any follow-on commits REVIEWED-115. + +--- + +## REVIEWED-116 — PENDING-131/132/133/134 — Design-gate ruling on the nested-voice package: the test is right, its derivation is not +**Date:** 2026-08-10 +**Decision:** AUTHORIZED — the jurist's ruling on all six gate questions is adopted. Three companion items remain OPEN and are named in point 6. +**Notes:** Ruling on docs/nested-voice-class-JURIST-PACKAGE-2026-08-10.md (studium-engine 74aed28). The package reversed its own central argument mid-draft and left the refuted version visible; the jurist records that this is what made the decisive counter-argument findable, having read it in the position the executor had abandoned. + +1. Q1 — THE CLAIM-SIDE TEST GOVERNS, BUT IT IS NEW DOCTRINE AND MAY NOT ENTER AS A READING OF THE RATIFIED DESIGN. The package argued the test was already supplied by §7.4(ii)'s F5 parallel. That derivation fails on a ground the package never addressed: §6.2 is PRE-REGISTERED, by its own parenthetical, and pre-registration's entire value is that the scheme was fixed before anyone saw which spans landed where. A test that changes stratum-B membership, derived after reading the spans it reclassifies and entering by interpretation rather than amendment, voids that guarantee whether or not the test is right. Had the package's headline stood, a pre-registered scheme would have been amended without an amendment. Filed instead as PENDING-134. + +2. Q2 — §6.2's OMISSION OF F4 IS EVIDENCE, AND IT DISQUALIFIES THE DERIVATION RATHER THAN THE TEST. §6.2 admits F5 as "qualified span (F5)" — naming a span property and parenthesising the failure-mode row it risks. That construction would have admitted "reported-speech span (F4)", and the drafters were using it one item away in the same list. Further, the design has two admission routes to stratum B, §6.2's enumeration and an explicit clause in the §5 row, and F10 has the second where F4 has neither. Two available mechanisms both unused is not an accident of enumeration. + +3. Q3 — INSTANCE 8 (L1551) IS NOT ESTABLISHABLE AS RETAINED, and its retention is split out of PENDING-132. The package classified it on structural markers because the positional probe failed on it, and the probe failed precisely because it is a two-fragment composite — which is the profile of the claim withdrawn from the EN set the same morning for fusing one host proposition with one nested-voice proposition. The fused-claim test was subsequently run: fragment 1 carries the attributing clause; fragment 2 does not, opening on the tail of the carpenter's speech before reaching Mauss's conclusion. Instance 8 needs its own disposition. + +4. Q4 — THE SUB-LINE ADDRESSING CAPABILITY IS TO BE SOUGHT, framed as an addressing capability and not as a vocabulary reconciliation. Two additions: retraction does not close the exposure, since removing citations takes bad gold out but installs no fence and L926 remains unmarked; and §7.4(i)'s requirement is unsatisfied either way, so the ask does not weaken when PENDING-132 lands. Cross-repo — the schema is locked by the Chamber Library constitution, which the studium charter cannot unlock. + +5. Q5 and Q6 — (b1) proceeds as an identification pass that writes nothing, marking after the vocabulary is ruled, since the reading survives any vocabulary and only the field-write depends on it. The fr 1:9 ratio is VOID and is to be re-derived ONCE, after the doctrine lands and dispositions are recorded — not after PENDING-132 alone, which would derive it twice. + +6. PART V RESCOPED, and the item contradicted its own diagnosis. PENDING-133 bounded its remedy at the two F4-carrying spans while stating that P7's tagging had no claim-side step — which, if true, is true of the whole cell. The bound also assumed P7's F4 tagging is complete, unchecked, against evidence pointing the other way: 21 inline guillemet spans of 120 characters or more sit unmarked inside Mauss's role: text regions, and the corpus marking pass missed inline cases by the same mechanism on the same source. Corrected scope: every fr grounded span, nine or ten, read for reported speech and dispositioned where present. Recorded as PENDING-133 Amendment 1. + +7. VERIFICATION LIMIT ON THIS RULING, stated by the jurist first and recorded here because it bears on the whole: every quotation in the package's Part I was the executor's testimony, unreachable through governance_read, and that is the exact material two of the day's three reversals turned on. Closed the same day — see REVIEWED-117. + +**If AUTHORIZED:** PENDING-131 Addenda 1–3 stand as filed. PENDING-132 (amended), PENDING-133 (as rescoped) and PENDING-134 REMAIN OPEN and await a separate steward decision; this entry adopts the ruling that shapes them, never the acts they propose. No corpus file has been modified anywhere in this arc. Tag follow-on commits REVIEWED-116. + +--- + +## REVIEWED-117 — PENDING-86 — Fourth instance: the V0-lane texts the jurist design-gates but could not read +**Date:** 2026-08-10 +**Decision:** AUTHORIZED — four read-only keys added to governance_read, on the steward's direct request. +**Notes:** Same shape and same remedy as REVIEWED's earlier PENDING-86 option (a), which added chamber-spec and graduation-spec on the ground that the jurist design-gates constitutional supersessions of documents it could not read. This is the fourth recorded instance and the first outside the chamber constitution. + +1. THE GAP WAS NAMED BY THE JURIST IN ITS OWN RULING, as the first thing in it: governance_read exposed eight keys, docs/v2-validation-harness-design-2026-07-09.md was not among them, and therefore every quotation in the package's Part I was testimony rather than something the ruling's author could reach. The package's Part I exists solely because of that limit. + +2. KEYS ADDED: v2-harness-design (§5 failure-mode table, §6.2 pre-registered strata, §7.4 whole-for-part attribution — the three sections the ruling turns on); v2-stratum-tags (P7); mauss-fixture-spans (locations and Tier-1 verdicts); mauss-fixture-citations (the citation texts themselves — the file that answers whose proposition a claim asserts). Read-only, keyed, no path argument; the enum design is unchanged and the traversal refusal is untouched. + +3. EIGHT CONTROLS ADDED, and they check the served CONTENT rather than only that a key resolves — that §6.2's pre-registration clause, §7.4's nested-voice sub-type, §5's F4 row and the L926 citation strings are actually present in what is served. A key that resolved to an empty or wrong file would otherwise pass a reads-ok assertion. Self-test 54 checks, 0 failures. + +4. PROCEDURAL NOTE, recorded rather than omitted: the change was executed on a conversational request and before any item was filed for it. It extends an already-ruled class on an existing read-only instrument, and it is trivially reversible, but the execution preceded the record and that ordering is stated here rather than left to be inferred. + +**If AUTHORIZED:** Already executed (dotfiles 4c3758e). Tag follow-on commits REVIEWED-117. + +## REVIEWED-118 — PENDING-132 — Retract L926's three citations from the fr grounded gold +**Date:** 2026-08-10 +**Decision:** AUTHORIZED — the retraction only. The instance-8 retention is NOT authorized by this entry and remains undecided. +**Notes:** fr instances 6, 12 and 16 cite Tamati Ranaipiri's first-person testimony and are bound as citations of Mauss. Taken now on a timing ground as well as a substantive one: no measurement currently depends on this fixture — the EN span proposal is stamped unusable pending the query split, and the fr ratio is void pending PENDING-134 — so the fixture is quiescent, which is the cheapest possible moment to change it. That window closes as soon as anything starts measuring again. + +1. SELF-STANDING ON CONVERGENT GROUNDS, which is why it can precede PENDING-134. The two live readings of F4 disagree about the marker in general and converge on L926 in particular: under the claim-side test it retracts because its three citations assert Ranaipiri's propositions rather than Mauss's; under the stricter reading, that §6.2's double omission disqualifies F4 from stratum B outright, it retracts because it carries F4 at all. Ruling PENDING-134 either way leaves this outcome unchanged. An earlier draft led with the claim-side test alone, which would have made an authorized item rest on an unruled gate. + +2. EVIDENCE, measured 2026-08-10 against the canonical (sha 2889709555f2abac…, binding verified). Mauss's own framing sentence — the one naming Elsdon Best and Tamati Ranaipiri — occupies characters 0 to 279 of L926; the quoted testimony runs 279 to 1427. All three citations begin at characters 308, 843 and 932, inside the testimony. All three are first-person. None carries an attributing clause. + +3. NO REPLACEMENT RATIO IS RECORDED, and the omission is deliberate. An earlier draft stated the effect as 1 A : 9 B becoming 1 A : 8 B. Under PENDING-134 the cell's tagging basis changes and not merely its population, so 1:8 would be exactly as provisional as 1:9 — and a figure inside an AUTHORIZED item is far stickier than one marked stale inside a proposal, because it will be quoted. The ratio is VOID and is re-derived ONCE, after the doctrine lands and dispositions are recorded (REVIEWED-116 point 5). Effect recorded here is population only: fr distinct spans 11 to 10, bound instances 15 to 12. + +4. INSTANCE 8 (L1551) IS SPLIT OUT AND NOT AUTHORIZED BY INCLUSION. The item as first filed carried a contrast section stating that instance 8 should be retained, which would have authorized that retention as a side effect of authorizing this retraction. Confirmed on re-reading that the retention left the body and survives only as a quotation inside the correction note. The fused-claim test has since been run on its two fragments and goes against retention: fragment 1 carries the attributing clause, fragment 2 does not, opening on the tail of the carpenter's speech before reaching Mauss's conclusion. Its disposition is owed as its own item. + +5. THIS IS A RETRACTION, NOT A FENCE, and the exposure survives it. Removing three citations takes bad gold out of the fixture; it installs no fence. L926 remains unmarked, a future claim can still ground inside the testimony, and §7.4(i)'s required provenance join is unsatisfied either way — so the addressing ask (PENDING-131 (c), REVIEWED-116 point 4) does not weaken when this lands. + +**If AUTHORIZED:** Retract instances 6, 12 and 16 from the grounded set in corpus/mauss-phase2-spans.yaml and corpus/v2-stratum-tags.yaml, recording the retraction and this entry's number in both. Do NOT re-derive the ratio; do NOT mark L926; do NOT disposition instance 8. Re-run the fleet and the gold-intersection reporter against the changed fixture, and confirm the reporter's live control still loads a non-empty gold set afterward — a retraction shrinks exactly the thing that control reads. Tag commits REVIEWED-118.