Independent review of 3096c54 returned three blocking findings, all in
revision A's text, and each is a rule revision A had just corrected surviving
one step downstream of where it was fixed.
1. §6 item 2c still said "all three counters and their new values" -- the rule
pin 10a corrected in the same revision. Third site of one false claim: the
pin, then touch row 11 (caught by rev A's sweep), then the report item that
READS the pin. Now points at pin 10a's table and requires naming which
document minted the label.
2. §6 still demanded "the nine gate results" while §4 carries twelve entries
(1-11 plus 4a). Revision A removed the identical tally from item 1 for
mutations and left its neighbour on the next line standing. Count removed,
§4 named as origin, 11a-e identified as subchecks of one gate rather than
five separate results.
3. Touch row 8 still required violating_score's fixture to violate "both
directions" while M6 requires direction-isolated fixtures -- incompatible
evidence models in one contract. A both-direction generator remains
reported after either M6 arm is deleted, so it cannot sign that arm's
absence. Row 8 now specifies one named direction plus shrink survival; pin
6/M6 own two separate isolated fixtures. violating_score returns one Score
per variant and could not have carried both regardless.
Found by sweeping and fixed with them: gate 7 and §6 item 4 both said "the
four pin-8 tests." Correct today, but the same construction -- a count
restated away from its origin, and inconsistent with the two tallies just
removed. Pin 8's table named instead.
The pattern across revisions A and B is sharper than any single finding: a
correction propagates one hop and stops. Rev A fixed pin 10a and left touch
row 11; the sweep caught row 11 and stopped before §6's consumer. Rev A
removed item 1's mutation tally and left item 2's gate tally on the next line.
The fix-every-site rule is not satisfied by fixing the site and its obvious
neighbour -- it requires asking who READS the corrected rule.
Noted, not changed: §6's items run 2, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2a because 2a predates the
new items. Cosmetic, and renumbering would break pin 12's and gate 10's
references to item 2b.
Still DRAFT, still unratified. No implementation work has begun.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ps1szk2mSfgp4Cz21eVH9x
Levi Neuwirth
0a5b93688b