Edit 1 — §3's M1 row now states the measured radius: C6 and C7 each fail *both*
pin-10 order tests, and the legacy `f4` assertion fails for neither. The
superseded sentence survives exactly once, in §6.1's blockquote, where it is a
dated quotation of what was corrected.
Edit 2 — §3's preamble gains an append. Its "Four cells were measured" sentence
is left unedited: it is accurate about what was measured before ratification,
and rewriting it would destroy a true historical claim to fix a staleness. Six
cells are now measured, and the append says which two joined and why the
criterion that excluded them was wrong.
Edit 4 — the annex gains §8, equal to §6.5c's pinned source template with its
single hash slot filled. §5 and §7 are untouched and hash to the values pinned
at ratification; verified byte-identical against 29ef3af's blob, halt notice and
both mismatch marks intact. The execution record is appended to, never
reconciled — the mismatch is the evidence.
A1 §3 correction, superseded sentence occurring exactly once
A2 discharged by the dated transcripts in annex §5.3 and §5.4; not re-run
A3 no implementation, test or fixture change attributable to the amendment;
commit touches exactly two spec files; workspace at 44/1604/0/0
A4 §8 equals the template; §5 and §7 byte-identical to the oracle
A5 §6 in its ratified form; pin 12's transitions untouched
M1 is complete. C4, C5, C8, C9 and C10 matched their dispatched cells; C6 and C7
match the corrected cells. The mutation sequence resumes at M2, and its
transcripts land in annex §9 — §5 is closed at M1 by the digest gate.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ps1szk2mSfgp4Cz21eVH9x
Execution of P13-S29 halted at M1 on a radius mismatch. §3 pinned M1·C6 and
M1·C7 as failing "their pin-10 test alone"; measured, each fails both pin-10
order tests. The tree is correct and the cell is not.
Pin 10 builds both tests from `two_segments(seed, (2, 3), (1, 2))` and pins a
fourth assertion — the aggregate's invariant arm is empty. It also establishes
that this fixture emits C6 *and* C7, and expressly rejects the end-before-start
segment that would separate them. So re-tagging either condition puts an
Invariant violation into both fixtures and the sibling's fourth assertion fails.
§3's cell reasoned about the legacy `f4` observer — correctly; `f4` is in neither
radius — and never asked the same question of the tests this contract writes.
The one-hop correction, inside a single table cell. §3 measured four cells
because they reached tests the contract did not write; C6 and C7 reach tests it
did write, which is why they were derived and why the derivation was trusted.
Authorship of a test is not knowledge of its fixture's reach.
C4, C5, C8, C9 and C10 were measured in the same pass and matched exactly, so
the correction is not generalized: C4/C5 and C8/C9 also share labels and show no
cross-talk. The operative property is a shared fixture, not a shared label.
This commit ratifies only. It carries §6 in its frozen form and the
pre-amendment annex — §1–§7, no §8 — which §6.5c-bis names as the oracle for the
byte-identity gate. §5 and §7 record what was expected, what was observed and
why execution stopped; they are appended to, never reconciled, because the
mismatch is the evidence.
annex §5 sha256 40ce82a70339159024c69dd5e280d8bd6846efbeb1eecd5b7971a2737826f74b 134 lines
annex §7 sha256 cdd9bfd91da5091174201b1bc16aea6a5f162cc5f6d8553f6d58d7c56aacccd8 76 lines
Edits 1, 2 and 4 follow in their own commit, then A1–A5, then M2.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ps1szk2mSfgp4Cz21eVH9x
Levi Neuwirth