The W2 contract charters the shared typed glyph-asset seam Ruling A names as a
T4 prerequisite. Scoping it turned up the same shape W1 had: the seam is
already designed and merely unpopulated. PathCommand, GlyphRenderData, and
GlyphCatalog::render_data all exist in layout-ir, and BravuraCatalog returns
None by deliberate documented honesty -- reporting Some would claim render data
that does not exist. So the packet fills a seam rather than building one.
Two findings reshape it from the sketch carried in the W1 contract. Bravura.otf
is not in the tree -- tools/ holds only the extractor script and OFL.txt, and
the generated header pins source hashes verified at extraction time -- so
"have the generator emit typed paths alongside the d strings" cannot be
executed here. The contract replaces it with a dependency-free in-crate parser
over exactly the grammar the generator emits, and proves equivalence by
round-trip: parse every bundled d, re-emit, compare byte-for-byte, with a
sanctioned coordinate-sequence fallback that must be reported if used. And the
metrics table is conformance identity -- metrics_hash hashes (name, metrics)
pairs with values participating, and GlyphCatalogIdentity is encoded into the
resolved layout's canonical bytes -- so it is out of bounds entirely.
The test worth watching is the cross-table one. glyph.rs claims the metrics and
the outlines agree because both came from the same Bravura release; that is
asserted in prose and tested nowhere. The contract requires comparing each
glyph's real outline extent against its declared bbox, reporting the worst-case
deviation, and treating a failure as a finding rather than a reason to widen
the tolerance -- it would mean engraving reserves the wrong space for that
glyph, which is the bug class that twice bit the vertical metric.
Three parallelism claims are corrected in the same pass, all mine and all too
coarse. The plan and the ruling both said T1b's lease/save/single-writer
machinery could be contracted in parallel with the genesis work. That was
written before the ladder existed, and it is now per-rung rather than
unconditional: G1 needs no accept-set raise and never enters epiphany-bundle,
so T1b's bundle work runs beside it, while G2 spends the raise in bundle.rs
where T1b's single-writer enforcement also lands, so those two must not fly
together. Ruling B's blocker note also still described the identity disposition
as blocking; it is ruled, and now points at where.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Levi Neuwirth
a35f534235