neuwirth
/
epiphany
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

P13-S26 amendment 2: amendment 1's lifecycle statements 

Ratifying amendment 1 discharged its prescriptions and left its prose
describing the state it was written in. Section 6 went on calling itself a
draft, its replacement "proposed", its ratification act pending, and its review
questions open -- while its own status line read RATIFIED and the hold had been
lifted at f9170b0. This does not rewrite that commit; it corrects what
ratification could not correct by itself.

Pin 11 did not cover any of it. Its landing edit reached section 6's revision
records only, so the preamble, the section and subsection lead-ins, and the
review disposition were owned by nothing -- the same shape as the defect pin 11
exists to prevent, one layer in: a document describing a state it is not in,
this time about its own amendment rather than about the rung. Ratification is
not self-applying. A frozen prescription discharges; the prose around it does
not, unless something owns it.

Applied: the preamble becomes a dated record ending the hold at f9170b0, past
tense throughout; 6.3 and 6.7 are marked ratified, with 6.7's two
ratification-act edits marked discharged and its closing paragraph put in past
tense where it had asserted the amendment was not yet ratified; 6.8 becomes a
closed review disposition, each question answered and attributed to the round
that answered it.

Pin 11's third landing edit and gate 13 are widened from "revision records" to
section 6's revision records, preamble and lifecycle records. Widened rather
than re-enumerated: listing the sentences that had gone stale would leave the
next one unowned in exactly the way this amendment repairs. Gate 13 still reads
the status line specifically and never searches the section for DRAFT, which
the revision records legitimately contain.

No implementation target is touched. core_spec.tex, invariants.rs, the ledger
and the guard file remain untouched at 01c621d; baseline unchanged at 1583
passing across 42 suites. Execution resumes at pin 3 with amendment 1's shape
unchanged.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ps1szk2mSfgp4Cz21eVH9x
This commit is contained in:
Levi Neuwirth 2026-08-11 15:05:59 +02:00
parent f9170b0ed9
commit 86bf7c65b9
No known key found for this signature in database
1 changed files with 107 additions and 42 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

149
spec/CONTRACT_P13S26_INVARIANT10_SURFACE.md
View File

@ -1647,16 +1647,18 @@ Ratified 2026-08-11 on the authority of the repository owner, review round 5
returning zero findings. The amended pins are executed, not edited; a further
defect is its own amendment with its own review round.
**DISPATCHED 2026-08-11; HELD at pin 3 before the first execution edit.** The
contract was dispatched for implementation, execution began, and it stopped on
reaching pin 3 — so "NOT YET DISPATCHED" is no longer accurate, and 6.7
prescribes its replacement.
**DATED RECORD — the hold this amendment describes ENDED at `f9170b0`.** What
follows is an account of 2026-08-11, not a statement of current state.
**No pin 3 or pin 6 implementation target has been modified.** `core_spec.tex`,
`invariants.rs`, the ledger and the guard file are untouched at `01c621d`. The
only change is this amendment draft to the future pin-11 target, and **it is not
an execution edit** — pin 11's edits belong to landing, and this one belongs to
the amendment.
On that date the contract was dispatched for implementation, execution began,
and it stopped on reaching pin 3; the top status paragraph still read NOT YET
DISPATCHED, and 6.7 prescribed its replacement. Throughout the hold no pin 3 or
pin 6 implementation target was modified — `core_spec.tex`, `invariants.rs`, the
ledger and the guard file were untouched at `01c621d`, and the only change was
this amendment's own draft.
**Both of 6.7's ratification-act edits were applied at `f9170b0` and the hold was
lifted.** Execution resumes at pin 3.
### REVISION E — review round 5. One exactness correction. ACCEPTED.
@ -1789,7 +1791,7 @@ Pin 3 permits group headings "rendered as prose lead-ins outside the nested
`itemize`". A scope-broadening opening is not a group heading, so executing it
that way would be editing a frozen pin by interpretation.
### 6.3 Proposed replacement for pin 3's item-10 shape
### 6.3 Replacement for pin 3's item-10 shape — RATIFIED at `f9170b0`
Item 10 becomes, in this order:
@ -1901,7 +1903,7 @@ That is the discrimination M19 is for: the two anchor kinds are driven to
opposite verdicts by one mutation. **M21 remains the duplicate-count
signature**, and the two no longer overlap.
### 6.7 Consequential change to pin 11, touch row 7 and gate 13
### 6.7 Consequential change to pin 11, touch row 7 and gate 13 — RATIFIED at `f9170b0`; the ratification-act edits are DISCHARGED
Pin 11 and gate 13 speak only of "review-round blocks above §0", so **this
amendment and its review record could land still reading DRAFT and HELD** —
@ -1914,10 +1916,11 @@ document than pin 11 looks.
different acts.** With one literal, §6 sits at `DRAFT` through the whole of
execution.
**Two edits belong to this amendment's own ratification act — not to pin 11**,
because the contract is *already dispatched* and its top status is *already*
untrue; waiting for landing would leave the document lying about its lifecycle
for the entire execution:
**Two edits belonged to this amendment's own ratification act — not to pin 11**,
because the contract was *already dispatched* and its top status *already*
untrue; waiting for landing would have left the document lying about its
lifecycle for the entire execution. **Both were applied at `f9170b0` and are
DISCHARGED:**
- **§6's status line** becomes exactly:
`STATUS: RATIFIED. Pins 3, 6 and 11 amended. Execution resumes.`
@ -1963,46 +1966,108 @@ for the entire execution:
The ratification date, the owner's authority and the no-count rule all
survive, which is the point of replacing a clause rather than the paragraph.
**Pin 11 continues to own only the later landed forms**, and gains one:
**Pin 11 continues to own only the later landed forms**, and gains one — this
part remains a change to pin 11, executed at landing, not at ratification:
- **On landing**, §6's status line becomes exactly
`STATUS: LANDED by this commit.` — the same no-hash rule as pin 11's own
STATUS, for the same reason.
**Proposed:**
**Amended into pin 11, touch row 7 and gate 13:**
- **Pin 11** gains a third landing edit: **§6's status line** takes its landed
literal, and **§6's revision records are marked a dated historical record**,
on the same rule as the review-round blocks.
literal, and **§6's revision records, preamble and lifecycle records are
marked a dated historical record**, on the same rule as the review-round
blocks. *Widened by amendment 2 from "revision records" alone, which left the
preamble and the section's own lifecycle statements unowned — the defect
amendment 2 exists to close.*
- **Touch row 7** names that third edit alongside the other two.
- **Gate 13** asserts **the status line specifically** — that §6's status line
reads exactly `STATUS: LANDED by this commit.`, and that §6's revision records
are marked historical. **It must not search §6 for the word `DRAFT`**: the
reads exactly `STATUS: LANDED by this commit.`, and that §6's revision
records, **its preamble and its lifecycle records** are marked historical. **It must not search §6 for the word `DRAFT`**: the
revision records explain what the drafts said and legitimately contain it, so
a section-wide search would be unsatisfiable by a correct execution.
**Why the top status is reconciled at ratification rather than at landing.**
It reads **NOT YET DISPATCHED** while §6 records **DISPATCHED; HELD** — the
It read **NOT YET DISPATCHED** while §6 recorded **DISPATCHED; HELD** — the
document contradicting itself about its own lifecycle, the class this rung has
caught repeatedly. Deferring the fix to pin 11 would keep that contradiction
live for the whole of execution, which is precisely the interval in which a
reader most needs the status to be true. It is therefore an **amendment-
ratification** edit, above, and is **not edited here**: the STATUS block is
ratified text and this amendment is not yet ratified.
caught repeatedly. Deferring the fix to pin 11 would have kept that
contradiction live for the whole of execution, which is precisely the interval
in which a reader most needs the status to be true. It was therefore an
**amendment-ratification** edit, and it was **applied at `f9170b0`**.
### 6.8 What the next review must decide
### 6.8 Review disposition — CLOSED at `f9170b0`
1. Whether 6.3's *explicit-permission* subordination is the right instrument,
now that the cross-cutting form stands **unproved** and revision A's bare
form **ambiguous** — and whether it reads as normative English rather than as
a hedge.
2. ~~Whether M19's two-part construction holds against a backward-searching
slice.~~ **Settled by review round 4:** pin 6 already requires the nested
list to follow the anchor, so a backward search would violate the pin. Not an
open question.
3. Whether anything else in §6 asserts a property of the re-anchoring rules that
was read off their coverage rather than their text — 6.4 was one such, and
the class has now recurred twice.
4. Whether the two ratification-act edits in 6.7 are correctly scoped — they
are the only edits this amendment prescribes for a moment other than landing,
and they touch the ratified STATUS block.
Every question this section put to review was answered before ratification.
None is open.
1. **The explicit-permission subordination is the right instrument.** Review
round 5 accepted it, the cross-cutting form standing **unproved** and
revision A's bare form **ambiguous**. Closed.
2. **M19's two-part construction holds.** Review round 4: pin 6 already requires
the nested list to follow the anchor, so a backward-searching slice would
violate the pin rather than expose an unresolved choice. Closed.
3. **No further coverage-for-text substitution remains in §6.** Review rounds 3
and 4 found the class twice more — in 6.4's claim, then in its own rejection
reasoning — and round 5 returned zero findings against the whole section.
Closed.
4. **The two ratification-act edits were correctly scoped**, and are
**discharged** at `f9170b0`: §6's status literal, and the clause-level
replacement in the top status paragraph. Closed.
---
## §7. AMENDMENT 2 — AMENDMENT 1'S LIFECYCLE STATEMENTS
**STATUS: RATIFIED 2026-08-11 on the owner's instruction. Applied by the same
commit that records it.** Amendment 1 stands as ratified at `f9170b0`; **this
amendment does not rewrite that commit**, and changes no pin 3, pin 4, pin 5,
pin 6, pin 7 or pin 10 content.
### 7.1 The defect
Ratifying amendment 1 discharged its *prescriptions* and left its *prose*
describing the state it was written in. §6 went on calling itself a draft, its
replacement "proposed", its ratification act pending, and its review questions
open — while §6's own status line read RATIFIED and the hold had been lifted.
**Pin 11 did not cover this.** Its landing edit reached §6's *revision records*
only, so the preamble, the section and subsection lead-ins, and the review
disposition were owned by nothing. That is the same shape as the defect pin 11
was written to prevent, one layer further in: **a document describing a state it
is not in**, this time about its own amendment rather than about the rung.
Recorded plainly because the pattern is the rung's whole subject: **ratification
is not self-applying.** A frozen prescription discharges; the prose around it
does not, unless something owns it.
### 7.2 What this amendment applied
1. **§6's preamble** becomes a **dated record** ending the hold at `f9170b0`,
in past tense throughout, stating that execution resumes.
2. **§6.3** is marked **RATIFIED at `f9170b0`** rather than "Proposed
replacement".
3. **§6.7** is marked **RATIFIED**, its two ratification-act edits
**DISCHARGED**, and its closing paragraph put in past tense — it previously
asserted that "this amendment is not yet ratified".
4. **§6.8** becomes a **closed review disposition**, each question answered and
attributed to the round that answered it, replacing "What the next review
must decide".
### 7.3 Pin 11 and gate 13 are widened
**Pin 11's third landing edit** now covers **§6's revision records, preamble and
lifecycle records**, not revision records alone. **Gate 13** asserts the same
widened set, still reading §6's **status line** specifically and never searching
the section for `DRAFT` — the revision records legitimately contain it.
**Why widening rather than another enumeration:** listing the sites that were
stale would leave the next lifecycle sentence unowned in exactly the way this
amendment is repairing. The category — §6's lifecycle statements — is what pin
11 must own.
### 7.4 Scope
No implementation target is touched. `core_spec.tex`, `invariants.rs`, the
ledger and the guard file remain untouched at `01c621d`. Execution resumes at
pin 3 with amendment 1's shape unchanged.