168 of core_spec's 207 requirement blocks carried no `\label`, so no conformance
claim could cite them. All 207 are labelled now; the suite is 277/277.
Labelling alone would not have delivered a citable requirement. **No document in
the suite numbered its requirements.** `\newtcolorbox{requirement}` had no
counter, so a `\label` inside one bound to the enclosing sectioning unit and
`\ref` rendered a *section* number: core_spec said "see Requirement 2.5.4" where
2.5.4 is a subsubsection, and 61 of its 207 requirements shared a rendered number
with another -- one number, 5.6.3, was shared by six. Adding 168 labels to that
scheme would have produced 168 citable-but-ambiguous references. All six documents
now carry a real counter, numbered within chapter, and the box title shows it, so
a reader can see which requirement they are looking at. 277 labels, zero
collisions.
The counter is stepped with a `code=` key rather than tcolorbox's own
`auto counter`, and that is not a style choice. `auto counter` steps its counter
for `\label` purposes inside an internal `\sbox`, and `\refstepcounter`'s effect
on `\@currentlabel` is a local assignment discarded when that box closes --
before a `\label` written in the box body ever runs, which is how every
requirement in this suite is labelled. Measured on a three-box test document:
titles rendered `1.1 1.2 1.3` while the three refs resolved to `1.1 1.1 1.2`. The
idiomatic form would have shipped 207 silently wrong cross-references under
correct-looking numbers.
`requirement_labels.rs` locks all of it: every requirement block in every
`spec/*.tex` carries a label; labels match `req:<area>:<slug>`; the area matches
the chapter; labels are unique suite-wide; no `req:*` string cited anywhere in the
repository is undefined; and the counter is stepped where the label can see it --
a regression lock, because reverting to `auto counter` leaves every other check
green while the references break.
The citation check needed an escape. It cannot tell "cite this requirement" from
"name a label that does not exist", and documenting a dangling label is a
legitimate thing to do -- it had already rewritten a scoping plan's prose into a
euphemism to make itself pass. `DISCUSSED_NOT_CITED` carries the one such string
with its reason.
That string was the pass's other finding. `req:layoutir:vertical-bands` was cited
twice in the Pass-12 log and never existed. It should not be repointed at the two
*ownership* requirements: those govern which band a primitive belongs to, while
both entries describe the inter-staff solve realizing a band's declared *height*,
which no requirement governs at all. That is why the log invented a name. Both
citations now say so, and the gap is filed as P13-S4 -- shipped behaviour with no
governing requirement.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Levi Neuwirth
043c18cabf