Go to file
Levi Neuwirth e43cd3410b
S16: ratification round 2 -- the status block stops describing the review
Whole-artifact ratification review of 5ec2ce0 returned one blocking finding.

The live status block still said this contract "has not been through
adversarial review rounds." That was true when written and false from the
first independent pass onward, and it sat in the "what remains before
dispatch" summary -- so a top-down reader received a false review-state signal
before reaching any record that contradicts it.

Replaced with a non-rotating pointer: the review records below are the review
state; the block states no count and no ordinal, and will say RATIFIED when
that decision is taken. Also sharpened the neighbouring sentence to name three
distinct states -- unblocked, ratified, dispatchable -- since conflating the
first two is the specific failure it cites from S27.

This is the status-block defect S27 spent amendments 4 through 7 removing,
reproduced here in its purest form. S27 established that a status line
describing the review must not describe the review: it must point at the
record that owns it, because every such line goes stale exactly when the
review advances, which is the one moment nobody is reading the status block.

What makes this worse than a stale count: a stale count reads as an error,
while "has not been through adversarial review rounds" reads as a verdict on
the artifact's maturity. A reader deciding whether to trust this draft would
have taken it as the answer, with ten revisions of independent review recorded
immediately below it.

And it is the whole-artifact question again. Rounds against edits ask "is this
change right?"; only a whole-artifact read asks "is anything the document says
about itself still true?" Round 1 found a missing permanent test that way;
round 2 found a false status claim. Both were invisible to every incremental
pass, and neither was in the content those passes were correcting.

Swept for other live review-state claims: none. The only remaining
"NOT RATIFIED" is the status line itself, which is the fact that changes at
ratification, and the false sentence survives only inside its own correction.

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
2026-08-09 18:38:27 +02:00
.github/workflows Editor T2 W3: the goldens become conformance gate [9/9] 2026-07-23 17:20:14 -04:00
crates P13-S27: accept reduction authority implementation 2026-08-09 15:05:58 +02:00
spec S16: ratification round 2 -- the status block stops describing the review 2026-08-09 18:38:27 +02:00
spikes/editor-toolkit Packet 2B: both candidates consume the frozen text apparatus 2026-07-30 21:42:05 -04:00
.gitignore Schema major 1 Phase F: ratify engrave I8/I9/I10 + process trail 2026-07-06 17:40:38 -04:00
CLAUDE.md Post-S27 doc reconciliation: CLAUDE, handoff, S16 contract, both ledger cells 2026-08-09 15:24:21 +02:00
CONFORMANCE.md Editor T2 W3: the goldens become conformance gate [9/9] 2026-07-23 17:20:14 -04:00
Cargo.lock Editor T4-pre W2: the glyph outlines become a shared typed seam 2026-07-24 18:54:30 -04:00
Cargo.toml T4 round 0: iced is eliminated, and the probe that cleared it proved nothing 2026-07-28 19:01:51 -04:00