Two corrections found by bite-testing the suite rather than by reading
it.
**Acceptance 32 was mis-named.** It claimed to pin "the one-shot is
removed BEFORE invocation". Biting that — moving the removal after the
`pcall` — still passes, because `pcall` catches the raise either way and
the removal runs regardless. The before/after ordering is unobservable
unless a handler re-enters the drain, and nothing does. What the test
actually pins is that removal is **unconditional**: the bite that gates
it on `if ok then` fails 2 != 1, because the surviving registration is
invoked a second time by the purge. Renamed and re-commented to say so.
The implementation still removes before invoking, which is the right
defensive order; it is simply not what the assertion proves.
**The purge's generation check is defensive and untested**, now labelled
in place instead of reading as covered. Reaching it needs a crash and
its restart to both land in a gap with no `_async.tick`; the backoff is
500ms, so any tick in that window sees `crashed` and the
absent-or-terminal test fires first. Every attempt to stage it
deterministically exercised the `crashed` path instead. It stays as
insurance for a stalled editor, and says that about itself.
Bites recorded, all against the committed tree:
- removal gated on a clean return -> acc32 fails (2 != 1).
- purge driven by a `crashed`/`stopped` event seen in the drain, the
design the framing originally implied -> the no-attachment case fails
("never called"), while the attached case still passes. That is the
discrimination acceptance 34's second half exists for.
- a resolver without `pmacs.fs.canonicalize` -> two servers, pinned as
34b's own falsification.
Levi Neuwirth
027c7d18e0