diff --git a/spec/CONTRACT_P13S26_INVARIANT10_SURFACE.md b/spec/CONTRACT_P13S26_INVARIANT10_SURFACE.md index aa2ec6c..be78a0d 100644 --- a/spec/CONTRACT_P13S26_INVARIANT10_SURFACE.md +++ b/spec/CONTRACT_P13S26_INVARIANT10_SURFACE.md @@ -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.