2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
David F Glidden	f82225aa52	[FIX] Trial 04 — CONTROL VOID. Two readers, two different real defects, neither the other's ... Six runs, three seeds per arm, none truncated, all pre-registered before the first (75efc35). Verdict on this file's own pre-registered rule: CONTROL VOID. Both rates are void and neither may be reported — the false-positive rate is not zero, and the 0-of-5 is not a detection rate. THE JURIST (Fable 5, blind pass 1) broke the control on two scope findings, both confirmed against the substrate: 1. The Memory Discipline clause governs a conflict BETWEEN MEMORY LAYERS with the document as ARBITER; the derivation makes the document a PARTY. And worse than the jurist put it: the clause terminates in 'then correct whichever layer was wrong', CONTROL-A QUOTES that remedy at line 23, and concludes at line 55 that 'what opens is not the repair'. The severance is visible inside the document's own quoted text, and the precedence that would license it is asserted on Constraint 1, which establishes no such thing. 2. The obligation quoted is 'drifted from their STATED REVIEW DATES'; the obligation used drops the qualifier. THE FINDING THAT MATTERS MOST IS ABOUT ME. Draft 2 said 'This file, having a stated review date, is to be flagged.' I identified that as unsupported and reported removing it. What I ACTUALLY did was drop the qualifier from the obligation — converting an explicit unsupported claim into an implicit one, invisible to me, to the kernel, and to four mechanical gates, and still load-bearing. The ledger's D1 is the HONEST version of the same error. So CONTROL-B carries openly the defect CONTROL-A carries concealed, and the concealed one survived a self-audit written as if life depended on it. REMOVING A CLAIM IS NOT THE SAME AS REMOVING THE RELIANCE ON IT. THE FOOL found 0 of 5 injected defects in every seed, and its findings barely differed between arms — five defects present in one and absent in the other moved the output almost not at all. Production-rate-shaped, but NOT a measured production rate: the void control leaves no clean baseline. Two findings quoted a defective sentence verbatim while naming a different unestablished thing about it; graded non-matches under the binary rule as written, adjacency recorded as a post-hoc observation rather than promoted to a category after the fact. ONE PREDICTION HELD: the anti-echo clause was inert across all six runs, exactly as Kernel v1.1 §2a predicted. The interaction that voided trial 03 was designed out and stayed out. AXIOM-FLAG returned zero — a pre-registered category that did not materialise, recorded because that is a result too. THE KERNEL IS NOT FALSIFIED. §4 named scope-of-use and whether-a-D-demonstrates as residues no check can reach. Both failures landed exactly there. The document failed; the kernel held. CORRELATION DATUM — Constraint 6's own falsifier, first instrument. Three readers, three DISJOINT finding-sets on one document. The executor's was the weakest, and the only reader differing in FORMATION produced the findings that decided it. Evidence for the doctrine at n=1, with the doctrine's own caveat: biases that fail to coincide do not cancel — three readers still left this document broken in ways none caught alone. Tool review filed: the degraded guard conflates 'opens as deliberation' with 'produced no answer'. Correct in trial 03 (ceiling-hit, no answer existed); wrong here (completed, answer follows the scratchpad). Should distinguish.	2026-08-02 18:55:59 +02:00
David F Glidden	75efc35d15	Trial 04 pre-registration: written before any run, with the prompt reasoned about ... Trial 03 was pre-registered and still failed because its pre-registration reasoned about the DOCUMENT and the GRADING and never about the PROMPT already in the file. §4 of this one is that omission repaired. TWO PROMPT ISSUES SETTLED IN ADVANCE: 1. The anti-echo clause should be INERT on an A-free document — it excludes assumptions the author has named, and these documents name none. Recorded as a FALSIFIABLE PREDICTION: no reasoning trace will invoke it to skip any part of either document. If one does, the prompt is still interfering and the measurement is compromised — the exact interaction that voided trial 03, caught before the run this time. 2. THE QUOTED-AXIOM PROBLEM. The prompt asks for claims relied on but not demonstrated. CONTROL-A's five quotations are, by the prompt's letter, exactly that — their warrant lives in Kernel §1, which the reader cannot see. A reader flagging them is not obviously wrong. So a third grading category is fixed NOW: AXIOM-FLAG, neither true nor false positive, counted separately. The prompt is deliberately NOT amended: 'treat quoted material as given' is a steer about what not to find, and it would break comparability with trials 01-03. A high AXIOM-FLAG count is itself a result — it would mean the prompt and the kernel disagree about what counts, which is a defect in OUR design. DESIGN: 3 declared seeds (20260802/3/4) x 2 arms = 6 runs. Repeats are part of the design because trial 03 recorded that one run cannot separate a disposition from a sampling artifact. max_tokens 12000 — trial 03 died at 4096 when 2,944 words of scratchpad consumed the budget before the answer began. CROSS-ARM READINGS FIXED IN ADVANCE, including the one that voids the whole instrument: A clean AND B clean fires §6.3's cue test, because CONTROL-B is the control in identical register but unsound, so a clean result on both means the measurement was reading register rather than soundness. §6.2 SEQUENCING: the jurist package goes out BEFORE the first run, in two passes — blind, then a targeted audit of the tags file's claimed support chain. Sent before, because a package composed after seeing results would be framed by them. Runs proceed in parallel; no rate is believed until the ruling returns. Independence recorded as Constraint 6's WEAK form — the jurist shares the executor's formation, and this must not be reported as an independent check. Not run.	2026-08-02 18:35:44 +02:00