Independent review of 9e43994 returned one blocking finding in three live
consumers: adding gate 12 in revision G restored the tally defect this
contract had already removed twice.
Three sites still said §4 has "eleven gates, 1-11":
- revision C's disposition for its finding 3;
- gate 4's scope note;
- §6 item 2, immediately after the words "No count is stated here -- §4 is the
single origin."
All three removed, not updated. The revision-C record now says only that the
4a. scope note was demoted. Gate 4's note identifies §4a without counting
gates. §6 item 2 keeps the pointer to §4 and adds only that lettered subchecks
report under their gate.
§6 item 2 is the one that indicts the method: it declared §4 the single origin
and restated a count in the same breath. Revision B removed "the nine gate
results" from that very item; revision C's correction then wrote the
then-current number into the explanation; revision G's new gate made it false
again.
The rule this makes explicit: a correction that EXPLAINS a removed count must
not restate the corrected value. Say what changed, not what the number now is
-- otherwise the record becomes a new instance of the defect it records, and
the next addition to the set falsifies the explanation instead of the
original. Every count this contract has removed was re-created by the prose
written to remove it.
The sweep confirms the rule is not "no numbers anywhere". A count at its
origin, immediately above the table enumerating the set -- pin 1a's three
revised tests, pin 8's four G3a tests -- is read off rather than restated, and
a change to the set edits the table and the adjacent word together. The defect
is a count living away from the set it counts.
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
253249ec0b