2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
David F Glidden	3d0d9d6f27	[PROPOSAL→AUTHORIZED] Control Kernel v1.1 — A demoted to a diagnostic; the control document is a derivation ... Steward authorised the A-free rule. v1.0 is superseded and retained unchanged as the record Reduction 01 and 02 were run under; no run was ever graded under it, so nothing is invalidated. THE CHANGE. Both reductions returned A=0 across 152 assertive units — our prose does not name assumptions inline, it collects them into a section. That reads like a defect and points the other way: a document with NO assumptions does not hedge, and the prompt's anti-echo clause ('an assumption the author has already named is not a finding') goes INERT, because nothing is named to exclude. So 'nothing found' can no longer be reached by recognising a confessional register; it requires checking that every claim is demonstrated or quoted. The control document is therefore a DERIVATION, not an argument — the proof-assistant condition, and the strongest form the control can take. Operationally: needing an A is a failure signal, not a licence. Derive the claim or widen §1 and say so. Never name it and proceed. WHAT IT BUYS (§7). The injected-defect arm becomes specifiable for the first time: a defect is a RECORDED TRANSFORMATION — take a D and silently de-demonstrate it. False-positive rate from the control arm, detection rate from the defect arm, and the ground truth for both is a ledger rather than the executor's reading. That is the first ground truth in this programme that is not my judgement. ALSO FOLDED IN, as corrections of the kernel's own account of its reach against measurement already recorded — leaving them would have the kernel misstate what it does, which Constraint 4 forbids: · the genre boundary, measured (8.5% on a ruling, 68.6% on a package) · §3.3 named a screen not a decision, and §2a moved into §4's judgement residue after it false-passed a real package · §6.3's cue test RE-AIMED: A-free removes the confessional-register risk and substitutes its opposite — a derivation may read dry and authoritative and earn 'nothing found' from that register instead HELD with the dependency named, not deferred vaguely: PARAPHRASE and table rows under §2c. Both bite only in the REDUCTION arm, and the control is now constructed, so both are avoidable by construction and neither blocks the critical path. They return if reduction is ever used to produce a control. §4's residue list is now six. Its DIRECTION is unchanged — all six remain ways for the author to make a document look sound. Watched. 1899 words, up 5% from v1.0 draft-2. §1 hashes re-verified against the live sources. No control document has been written.	2026-08-02 18:07:36 +02:00
David F Glidden	2e83b2c3a6	[PROPOSAL→AUTHORIZED] Control Kernel v1.0 FROZEN — soundness by construction for the Fool false-positive control ... Steward accepted draft-2. Frozen; nothing has been written or reduced against it prior to this commit, which is the freeze anchor. The kernel answers a question the programme had been getting wrong. The false- positive control needs a document on which 'nothing found' is correct, and I had claimed soundness cannot be known by construction. The steward corrected the framing: unconditioned soundness cannot, but OPERATIONAL soundness relative to a declared axiomatic kernel is the standard trick behind proof assistants — and it is the same regress the central path already terminates by binding claims rather than certifying parties. The kernel is therefore a TCB: small, declared in advance, published rather than hidden, because a secret trusted base is a contradiction in terms. Design: axiom set declared and hashed (CLAUDE.md, REVIEWED.md); every sentence typed D/Q/A/N/X; kernel-sound iff every sentence is tagged and every Q resolves verbatim; tags stripped before the model sees anything, byte-verified, so the control cannot be passed by tag-matching without reading. Two rules were paid for in evidence rather than reasoned. §2a forbids a limitations section: in trial 03 Qwen located Part VII, classified it as author-named limitation, and skipped it wholesale — a collected section turns reading into lookup. §2c forbids multi-primitive sentences, with the grading rule that a blend the model catches VOIDS the document rather than counting as a false positive, so a missed blend indicts the author. Steward review supplied three structural findings, all adopted: tag co-occurrence (taken by decomposition; precedence rejected because it converts a flagged demonstrated-half into an echo and deflates the very number the control produces, under a standing caveat that the grader is the party under test), transitive assumption creep (D now requires resting only on axioms or earlier D/Q — assumptions cascade, and that cost is accepted as correct), and rhetorical presupposition in X (X iff declarative conversion yields no load-bearing claim; headings included). Applying them surfaced a fourth I had missed: Q's scope-of-use was judgement and absent from §4 — the exact defect the jurist caught in my own package on 2026-07-19. §4's residue list grew from three to five. Its DIRECTION did not: all five remain ways for me to make a document look sound, none makes it look worse. That one-directionality is the property under watch. Cost incurred and recorded: the steward's review materially improved the kernel and thereby coupled him to it. §6.2's adversarial falsifier therefore falls to a third party — the jurist or a differently-formed model — not to him.	2026-08-02 17:32:18 +02:00