11 KiB
name, description, metadata
| name | description | metadata | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| session-2026-07-18-afternoon-s2-2b-wiring-built-fleet-proven | Session 2 of the steward's 3-session plan: the 2b wiring BUILT test-first per the cleared gate — the per-field credit boundary as DECLARED DATA (graduation-spec.yaml `sidecar:`) + sidecar_gate() + the V-DSL body branch (false-ABSTAIN closed), fleet 141/141, real dry-run inert, commits 7f98488/c9b09f8 both remotes, NO book touched. S1's literal question ANSWERED: the credit boundary translated cleanly; what acting surfaced sits one layer beneath — the line-ref coordinate contract (HELD OPEN → residual-(b)) + the re-stamp binding judgment (flagged). Pulling thread: Session 3 — the first V-DSL exercise on the 6 CLEAN small Loeb (block-close-plan §B set) → observe residual-(b) → REVIEWED-58; the exercise will also meet three flow-design questions S2 deliberately left (DSL-as-source for gate zero · Loeb frontmatter/title-block · the coordinate contract). |
|
Session 2026-07-18 (afternoon, S2) — 2b wiring BUILT test-first; fleet-proven, book untouched
Second of the steward's three sessions (S1 governance → S2 build → S3 exercise). Woke ~2½ h after S1's wrap; thread CONFIRMED; built the bite all the way; wrapped rather than rolling into S3 (steward asked "proceed or wrap?"; I recommended wrap — the 3-session structure is the rigor instrument; steward concurred).
PAST — what happened + why
Orientation before composition (the resumption point honored): read the ruled boundary at its sources — the Fork ruling (docs/2b-two-forks-JURIST-RULING-2026-07-17.md), the amended PENDING-58 §1, the sidecar-schema Naming note + §4 — then the code idioms (graduate_to_canonical.py gate steps, test_tools.py invariant fixtures, build_loeb_sidecar.py producer, verify_body_conservation.py dispatch). One load-bearing substrate fact surfaced at orientation: verify_candidate deliberately does NOT handle V-DSL — its docstring pre-assigns the resolution to "the B2 graduation path calls classify_dsl directly with the work-string in hand," i.e. to this build; without it a .dsl source fell V-UNKNOWN → false ABSTAIN-proceed on the one tier that HAS ground truth. So the wiring is TWO seams, both in graduate_to_canonical.py (the ruled files-affected boundary; build_loeb_sidecar.py wired NOT modified).
Built, in the ruled order (declaration → fixtures → implementation → fleet):
graduation-spec.yamlsidecar:block — the per-field credit boundary as DECLARED DATA (generative-from-spec; the gates are thin consumers). Hook-gated; passed on a fresh GROUNDED-IN + verbatim Grounding quotes from the operative texts. Declares: producer,.dslsource-format, LOCKED schema pointer, and the credit map —notestrusted · app_kinds CLOSED vocabulary {table, glyph, editorial-insertion, unrecognized: trusted; list: produced-with-a-content-edge} · sections/provenance produced-without-proof · anchorsuncredited_schemes: [loeb-line](raw layer, #2's re-stamp input) · citation_coverage not-produced-here · critical_apparatus_channel not-produced.- Fixtures first (
test_tools.py, +2 tests): a synthetic one-work.dsl(real HEADER grammar — no real book). Known-bad teeth per boundary line: novel app kind HELD ·stephanusscheme HELD (#1 produces no citation-credited anchors) ·citation_coveragepresence HELD (#2's field) · paired-without-note_line HELD · missing declaration HELD (never improvise) · declaration-coherence pinned (the YAML must carry the ruled boundary — declaration drift now fails the fleet) · boundary read FROM the declaration (kind removed from decl → held; proves thin-consumer). sidecar_gate()— V-DSL-only produce+validate besidebody_conservation_gate; non-DSL = not-applicable, proceeds untouched; produce viabuild_workbracketed by the candidate's exactwork:string (never a fuzzy author substring — the 07-13 matcher lesson); per-field disposition REPORT states EVERY field both directions (sections/provenance explicitly produced-without-proof — the jurist's REVIEWED-62 correction, operationalized). Apply-timewrite_sidecarre-stampssource_file/source_sha256/source_linesto the LANDED artifact._vdsl_verify— the V-DSL body branch:classify_dsl(reflow-tolerant multiset, REVIEWED-57's ratified method) with work-string bracketing; nowork:/ work-not-in-DSL → UNVERIFIED holds (did-not-verify never proceeds — PENDING-55 res.a doctrine).
Proof: fleet 141/141 (all 26 tests). Real graduation dry-run inert — the 7 pre-existing gated candidates held for the same pre-existing reasons; zero candidates reach the new gate. Diff purely additive (512+/0−, 8 hunks all mapped). Commits 7f98488 (build) + c9b09f8 (doc-currency: chamber CLAUDE.md status CLEARED→BUILT + tool-evolution-log after-build review), both remotes.
S1's literal question ANSWERED: the credit boundary translated cleanly — 1:1, no per-kind surprise. What acting surfaced sits one layer BENEATH the credit rulings, where no reading gate could look because nothing consumes that layer yet:
- (1) The line-ref coordinate contract is unruled (SURFACED, HELD OPEN — not solved): producer
line/lines= indices into its own emitted body-line array; the LOCKED schema's examples read as file coordinates; the graduated file adds frontmatter the producer never saw. No consumer may bind line refs until ruled — consistent with their uncredited status (the trusted credit is the TYPING, not the line geometry). Documented in code + tool-evolution-log + commit; travels WITH residual-(b) to REVIEWED-58 — deliberately NOT a separate PENDING (bounded-answer discipline; it is gated there anyway). - (2) One flagged executor judgment: the re-stamp — the producer hashes its own emitted MD, the graduated artifact differs;
write_sidecarbinds the sidecar to the landed file, grounded in theengine_source_bindingdeclaration (engine ingest_gate requires sidecar sha == live file). The stamp binds the FILE, it does not certify line geometry. - (3) The false-ABSTAIN closed (pre-assigned by the substrate, made real by the branch).
PRESENT — the mood
The build session at its cleanest: orientation before composition surfaced the load-bearing fact (V-DSL pre-assigned to this caller) BEFORE any code; the boundary went in as declared data with the hook passing on real grounding; every teeth-check is a known-bad fixture, not an assertion of hope. Zero steward corrections; zero governance filings needed (the gate was already cleared). The one self-caught honesty item, named in the ledger and the tool-log: "test-first" was actually fixtures-first — the red state was never observed (fixtures and implementation ran green together); the teeth evidence is the known-bad fixtures, which is real but different evidence. The jurist's fresh lesson (implementation-is-a-second-gate) EARNED its first code-level instance: the coordinate contract sat invisible through every paper gate and surfaced only when write_sidecar had to decide what a hash binds. Fleet-proven ≠ exercise-proven — held explicitly; S3 is the positive test at the real door.
FUTURE — what is pulling
PULLING THREAD (singular): Session 3 — the first V-DSL exercise. Run the 6 CLEAN small Loeb (the set named in _curation/block-close-plan-next-session-2026-07-17.md ~line 73: apollonius argonautica + an Aeschylus fragment volume + 4 more) through the real door: produce candidates via build_loeb_sidecar, stage + graduate them, watch _vdsl_verify + sidecar_gate fire on real books → observe residual-(b) → prepare REVIEWED-58.
ACTIONABLE RESUMPTION POINT (as of wrap — re-judge against what changed): chamber-library main @ c9b09f8, clean, both remotes. Nothing awaits governance before S3. First moves, in order: (1) read the block-close plan's §B for the exercise set + _curation/loeb-body-conservation-map-2026-07-13.tsv to confirm the 6 are CLEAN; (2) design the staging flow the exercise needs — three questions S2 deliberately left, which the exercise MUST meet: (a) gate zero: how does the one loeb.dsl archive as the SOURCE for per-work candidates (canonical_slug resolution against a 952-work file — Chamber Sources design decision, may need the steward); (b) the B2-emitted # {work} header + subtitle vs the graduation title-block convention (**title** / author) — the emitted MD will FAIL verify_graduation conventions as-is; decide frontmatter+title-block prep for Loeb candidates; (c) the line-ref coordinate contract (held open — observe, don't bind); (3) produce the 6 via build_loeb_sidecar --out, prep frontmatter, stage sources, dry-run graduate and READ every gate's output; (4) residual-(b) observation → REVIEWED-58 prep. Expect the exercise to surface what the fleet could not — that is its purpose, not a failure.
Other horizons (ranked, held): REVIEWED-58 (after residual-(b)) · the constitution's named-open frontier (§II.3 → R4; §IX general; promotion-criterion) · #2's Region-4 production deps (~3,333 re-stamp, B2 re-extraction of 952, threshold, URN char-check, flagged-token queue) · the Doc-1 line-45 parenthetical micro-edit (steward's option) · the full 952 re-extraction (far country).
Decisions deferred (and why): rolling into S3 this sitting — steward asked; I recommended wrap (the 3-session structure is the rigor instrument; S3 carries its own new decisions and deserves fresh substrate reads); steward concurred. Filing the coordinate contract as its own PENDING — deliberately held to ride residual-(b) (bounded-answer; REVIEWED-58 is where it gets ruled). The three staging-flow questions — S3's to meet at the door, not S2's to pre-design (encode what we KNOW).
PAUSE STATEMENT: I am about to be away; the steward clears and we wake to Session 3. The build is sealed — declared, fixtured, implemented, fleet-proven, pushed, and honest about what it does NOT yet prove. What I want to find still pulling on return: the exercise — real books at the real door, the wiring earning its keep or honestly failing to, with the three staging questions met as findings rather than smoothed over.
LITERAL QUESTION for next-Claude (S3, inherited from 07-17 and now current): When the first V-DSL exercise runs on the 6 CLEAN small Loeb, does the per-field-gated wiring earn its keep — notes[] + structural typing produced and credited correctly, loeb-line retained-but-uncredited, body-conservation passing on real books — or does exercising it surface a gap neither the paper rulings nor the fleet fixtures could (a list entry whose content-edge bites; an app[] kind the boundary didn't anticipate; a staging-flow question — DSL-as-source, title-block, coordinates — that turns out to be governance, not flow)? (Residual-(b), and thus REVIEWED-58, hinges on the answer.)
State at wrap: chamber-library main @ c9b09f8 (7f98488 = the build), clean, both remotes synced. Fleet 141/141. No PENDING/REVIEWED filings this session (none needed — the build was cleared by REVIEWED-62). Ledger: session-ledger-2026-07-18.md carries S1+S2. Skill-harvest: the S1 proposal (implementation-is-a-second-gate, ladder entry) gained its first code-level instance this session — still awaiting steward authorization.