Whole-artifact review of a5f3013 returned one blocking finding.
§6 item 1 declared that no count is stated there and then stated one: "M7's
split into M7a and M7b makes ten executions." §3's table now has eleven
mutation rows -- M1 through M5, M6a/M6b, M7a/M7b, M8, M9 -- because M6 split
too. This is a live report requirement, not dated history, so an execution
report could reconcile against the wrong set.
The paragraph indicted itself: its closing sentence warned that "a count here
goes stale the next time a mutation splits", and then M6 split and the count
went stale exactly as predicted, with the warning still attached to it.
Item 1 now reads: no count is stated here, §3's table is the single origin,
read its rows. The parenthetical records both stale values -- the original
"nine mutations (M1-M9)" and the replacement tally -- without restating a
current one.
This is revision J's rule, applied to item 1 after J applied it to item 2: an
explanation of a removed count must not restate a count. Items 1 and 2 are
adjacent lines, and J swept one of them. The neighbour-not-swept failure, in
the very pair of items that produced the rule.
Swept for other live mutation tallies: three remain, all inside dated revision
records or quoting superseded text (revision B's finding cell, round 7's
record, and item 1's own parenthetical). The live requirement is count-free.
Round 9's field-declaration anchors are confirmed sound by the reviewer: both
declarations are unique in graph.rs, and a B-wording revert leaves each
declaration available, so the needle assertion rather than the locator produces
the required output. That closes round 9's second finding on evidence rather
than on derivation.
Committed one round late: the shell tooling failed mid-round after the edit
landed, so this change sat uncommitted and was reported as such rather than
claimed as done.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Ps1szk2mSfgp4Cz21eVH9x
Levi Neuwirth
63a2dc8ce7