The .texlabroot caveat is discharged, and discharging it falsified the
reasoning behind it.
.texlabroot is real, and texlab marker set is wider than this document
listed --- the bare texlabroot and latexmkrc spellings count too, and
the walk takes the innermost. The implementation ships texlab own set.
But the caveat framed marker 1 as conditional on texlab honouring the
FILE, which was the wrong question. Every arm of texlab ancestor walk
searches documents already loaded, and that workspace is built from the
folders the CLIENT supplies. Observed: with rootUri at chapters/, no
ancestor marker widened texlab view and its dependency graph never
reached the parent document; with rootUri at the marker directory the
parent resolved either way.
So texlab honours the root it is handed and never corrects a too-narrow
one. config.latex.root IS the project scope, which makes the resolver
the whole value of the lane for a multi-file thesis rather than a
nicety --- the opposite of how section 2 "Slice 1 is one config entry"
reads.
Second correction, and this one was a real trap. Revision 2 said .git
is deliberately excluded from the walk and stopped there. Omitting it
is not sufficient: project_root_for falls through to
pmacs.project.detect when a resolver returns nil, and that walk lists
.git among its markers at src/project.rs:184. A resolver that politely
declined on a markerless file would hand texlab the monorepo by the
back door, with the exclusion looking correct at every line you would
think to read. The resolver never declines for a file with a directory,
and the fixture asserts the shared detector really would have answered
the repo root so the pin cannot pass vacuously.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016bqGA6s9tTUFzYpbeW3tai
Recorded as "implementation authorized" rather than "approved", because
that is what happened: the user authorized dispatch after a summary of
revision 2 four corrections, not after returning findings on the
document the way they did for the other four lanes.
The distinction matters for one reason. Section 3 .texlabroot caveat is
unverified and blocking --- texlab 5.25.1 is installed and its version
and CLI were checked, but the CLI exposes only run and inverse-search,
so its LSP-level behaviour was never established. A framing marked
plainly "approved" invites a reader to treat that caveat as settled
prose. It is step zero of the work.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016bqGA6s9tTUFzYpbeW3tai
Revision 1 was untracked, on main, in a single checkout. By the handoff
own rule --- work is portable only after it is committed and pushed ---
it did not travel. Committing it here is the first fix.
Three factual corrections, all from checking rather than reading.
haskell-language-server IS installed on this machine, along with its
wrapper. Revision 1 said it was not, and that claim was the entire
basis of its Slice 1 / Slice 2 split. Only OCaml still lacks a server.
The argument for leaving Haskell out survives, but on use evidence ---
the .hs files are a rarely-edited Hakyll generator --- not on
dependency cost.
Slice 1 is smaller than framed. Revision 1 proposed filetype mappings
for .tex/.latex/.sty/.cls "so highlighting and LSP agree on what a
LaTeX file is". They already agree, by construction: the grammar
carries exactly those extensions at src/syntax.rs:1111,
grammar-extension detection sits AHEAD of the LSP filetype map in the
precedence chain per the merged grammar framing at :166-171, and
lsp.lua:267-270 calls the filetype map "mainly the LSP-only fallback".
The real missing piece is one config entry.
Q#LX3 deferral argument read a stale line. COHERENCE.md:124 and :867
both record multi-root LSP affinity as merged in #161; only :1669 still
says "first slice in flight", contradicting the same document twice.
The one item revision 1 said could justify deferring therefore
dissolves. The COHERENCE.md inconsistency is real and is left for
whoever next touches section 20 rather than smuggled in here.
Q#LX2, which revision 1 called the question most likely to make the
entry wrong in practice, is now answered rather than shrugged at. An
upward marker walk through config.latex.root, which already accepts a
resolver function. .git is deliberately excluded: a repository root is
the wrong answer for LaTeX, since texlab wants the document root, and
this is the one place where copying the other fourteen entries
instinct would be actively wrong.
The .texlabroot marker is marked UNVERIFIED and blocking. texlab 5.25.1
is installed and its version and CLI were checked directly, but the CLI
exposes only run and inverse-search, so its LSP-level behaviour was not
established. Confirm against a live session before implementing. Same
discipline the gate-protocol-build lane applies to its own
precondition: the thing the design rests on gets observed, not
reasoned about.
Also renumbered Q#HS1 to Q#LX4, because revision 1 Q#LX2 collided with
a live question ID in the merged grammar framing for the same language.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016bqGA6s9tTUFzYpbeW3tai
Levi Neuwirth