🔧 Auto-commit from sysupdate on 2026-05-19 21:49

2026-05-19 21:49:14 +02:00
parent e9e772d69c
commit f83aae27c5
132 changed files with 14728 additions and 38 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+---
+name: ARC spec — actively flag inconsistencies the steward may have introduced
+description: Working contract with steward for ARC typography/spec work — when a rule the steward proposes or has previously locked creates an internal contradiction with the spec itself or with existing content, name it explicitly rather than silently accommodating
+type: feedback
+originSessionId: 8d9ac240-47df-4578-aec1-a9dd32965027
+---
+# Actively flag spec inconsistencies
+
+**Steward verbatim 2026-05-03**: *"I hope I'm being clear—that if I've created a specification for a rule that is inconsistent, that you'd bring my attention to it."*
+
+## Why
+
+The steward is consciously building a typographic system in real-time. Specs accumulate; rules interact; what looked self-consistent in isolation can become contradictory when combined with another rule, or when applied to existing content that predates the rule. Silent accommodation (writing around the contradiction; using workarounds; ignoring the inconsistency) produces drift the steward cannot see and cannot correct.
+
+The contract is: **name the contradiction in the moment**, not at wrap-up, not at audit-time. The steward will decide whether to resolve it, defer it, or accept it as a documented exception. The decision is theirs; the surfacing is mine.
+
+## How to apply
+
+### When proposing a new spec rule
+
+Ask: does this contradict an existing spec section? Does it contradict existing content the rule would now retroactively govern? Does it create an edge case the spec doesn't address?
+
+If yes — surface immediately as part of the proposal, not after.
+
+### When implementing a steward decision
+
+If the steward authorizes a change that creates contradictions elsewhere (e.g., switching em-dash → spaced en-dash retroactively, but the spec section that explains em-dashes still uses em-dashes pedagogically) — name the contradictions before executing, OR fix them as part of the same commit, NOT later.
+
+### When auditing existing spec or content
+
+Surface internal contradictions explicitly. Don't wait for a "good moment." Don't bundle into a vague "audit list." Name the specific contradiction + propose the resolution choice.
+
+### When the steward asks me to verify or implement
+
+If the rule-as-asked is internally inconsistent (or inconsistent with the broader spec), say so before implementing. The steward's authorization assumes I've checked.
+
+## Anti-pattern to avoid
+
+- "Silent accommodation" — writing around a contradiction without naming it
+- "Audit-list deferral" — bundling contradictions into a vague future audit instead of naming them now
+- "Polite rounding" — implementing the rule as-asked when it's clearly inconsistent, hoping the steward will notice later
+
+## Worked example (origin of this norm)
+
+The 2026-05-03 em-dash → spaced en-dash conversion: bulk script swept across content (848 conversions) and the spec itself (344 conversions). The spec section that EXPLAINS the em-dash convention had its own em-dashes converted, breaking the pedagogical examples. Lines like `(NOT \`word—word\`)` became `(NOT \`word – word\`)` — both alternatives now identical; the "NOT" example showed nothing.
+
+Steward's reaction: this is the moment to flag, not to silently accept. The spec section §I.f had to be rewritten with em-dash literals preserved inside code spans (where Pandoc passes them through verbatim) so the pedagogical content survives.
+
+The norm crystallized: actively flag inconsistencies, in the moment.
+
+## Cross-reference
+
+- `feedback-arc-link-treatment-one-rule-two-exceptions.md` — adjacent discipline (predictability over elaboration); together: predictable conventions, surfaced contradictions
+- `feedback-trust-contract-drift-pattern-tracking-is-the-discipline.md` — the broader trust contract this sits within