session 2026-08-08: REVIEWED-98 placed (PENDING-114 census authorized)
This commit is contained in:
+22
@@ -1076,3 +1076,25 @@ nested inside a genuine delimiter pair separates correctly
|
||||
**Scope.** Disposes (vi) only. REVIEWED-96 Q1–Q6 and PENDING-113's Q2/Q4/Q5 conditions are untouched. The Harrison/Mark finding raised alongside this is filed separately as **PENDING-114**, not as evidence for this entry.
|
||||
|
||||
**Numbering note (PENDING-110).** This is `REVIEWED-97`, the next in its own sequence — not `REVIEWED-113`. The registers are independent; PENDING-110 REJECTED renumbering-to-align, and numbering this 113 would skip 97–112 and entrench the false expectation that the sequences match. The heading names its PENDING per that item's convention (b).
|
||||
|
||||
## REVIEWED-98 — PENDING-114 — Scripture quoted inside a host text, unmarked: authorize the validated census
|
||||
|
||||
**Date:** 2026-08-08
|
||||
**Decision:** **(b) AUTHORIZED**, with **(c) attached exactly as proposed** for whatever (b)'s validated recall cannot reach. (a) — fix the Harrison span and stop — REJECTED.
|
||||
**Provenance:** steward, 2026-08-08, on the executor's PENDING-114. Reasoning recorded here rather than compressed, per PENDING-108/113: a ruling that exists only in conversation evaporates.
|
||||
|
||||
**Ground 1 — (a) would repeat, in miniature, the error already named in this same thread.** Fixing Harrison alone treats a class-shaped problem with a span-shaped fix. That is not an analogy to `118f411`; it is the same taxonomy error, identified hours earlier the same day and now written into the register against it.
|
||||
|
||||
**Ground 2 — the scale context, which PENDING-114 understates.** Harrison's quotation is invisible to any sidecar-based detector because it belongs to the intra-line class measured 2026-08-07 at **~6,455 marked quotation runs across 8 sources, ~94% of them intra-line** and therefore not expressible at the current section granularity. Harrison is **not an isolated miss — it is the first confirmed hit in a population that is this corpus's blind spot for precisely the property the corpus exists to guarantee.** First-order gap, not a curiosity.
|
||||
|
||||
**Ground 3 — why (b) rather than merely thorough.** (b) is built so as not to repeat the marker census's own failure. It does not propose trusting a signal; it proposes **demonstrating recall against a hand-scored known-positive / known-negative pair** — Harrison's actual quotation against Weil's mentions — before any corpus-wide claim is made. That is the discriminating-instance discipline (REVIEWED-83 A1) applied to the instrument *before* it is applied to the corpus.
|
||||
|
||||
**Ground 4 — the payoff, and the proposed doctrine earning its keep forward.** Whatever (b) finds is **marked, not fenced.** That is a materially different act from `118f411`: attribution removes nothing from the test population, it improves it. A correctly-marked Harrison/Mark instance becomes a **better** positive control than an unmarked one, not a destroyed one. REVIEWED-96's proposed doctrine — *a fix that enforces a property can destroy the population that tests it* — is here running **forward in time**, as a design constraint on remediation rather than as a post-hoc finding. This is the first occasion on which it has done real work.
|
||||
|
||||
**On (c) as the attached fallback.** If the validated detector's recall does not reach some part of the class, **disclosing that limit is a legitimate stopping point, not a failure to execute (b) properly** — the same standing (c) has in REVIEWED-48's gate-to-abstain, which was ruled doctrine-consistent rather than merely tolerated. (c) is not a consolation branch; it is the honest-degradation route (Constraint #4) and is authorized on its own terms.
|
||||
|
||||
**Binding on execution.** No corpus-wide claim — finding *or* all-clear — may be reported from the detector until its recall is demonstrated on the hand-scored pair. The marker census already run is a **failed instrument**, not a count, and is not to be cited as either evidence or reassurance.
|
||||
|
||||
**Scope.** Disposes PENDING-114 only. REVIEWED-96, REVIEWED-97 and PENDING-115 are untouched; PENDING-115 remains a separate blocker on remediation step 3.
|
||||
|
||||
**Pacing.** Execution timing left to the executor as a proportionate-to-energy call, explicitly not decided by the substantive case above.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user