David F GliddenandClaude Opus 4.8
3f9a89b00c
Basic Memory v0.21.6 first sync over the live memory dir (steward-authorized live-dir trial, Option A 2026-06-06): adds permalink: to frontmatter, refolds long YAML description lines, strips final newlines. Bodies untouched — verified via full diff classification. From this commit forward, any diff in claude/memory shows only what Basic Memory or the session writes. Trial design: MemPalace untouched as incumbent; git status check on this dir at every wrap; end-of-day evaluation (recall quality, sync robustness, rebuild-from-files, malformed-file behavior). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
59 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
59 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
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
|
||
permalink: claude-memory/feedback-arc-flag-spec-inconsistencies
|
||
---
|
||
|
||
# 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 |