Review round 1 of PR #182. One implementation gap and two stale claims.
**The scope pins the frontend; it does not pin the window.** Framing
§4.4 specified `display{ window = dest:window() }`, but dired's commit
still ended in `pmacs.window.switch_buffer`, which targets whatever
window the scoped frontend has selected. A split or panel that took
focus while `read_dir` was pending therefore received the listing, and
`prev` was captured from it too — with every preflight check passing,
because the captured window was still live and still held its captured
buffer. Both sites now read the captured window: `display` routes to it
with `select = true` (the later `seat_cursor` acts on the active
window), and the `prev` read asks it directly.
N4c pins both halves. The suite's existing routing pins all varied
*frontend* identity; none varied the selected window within one
frontend, which is exactly why 23 green pins missed this. Bite: dired's
`display` back to `switch_buffer` fails N4c alone; `prev` read from the
ambient window fails N4c alone.
Two stale documentation claims, both of which this PR was supposed to
have already fixed:
* **The §0 scorecard still graded §2 "Broken at entry"** while §2's own
ground truth had been rewritten. The scorecard is a second copy of the
same claim and §25's protocol covers both. §19's row and ground truth
were stale the same way — this PR creates the first cross-subsystem
suite, which §19 says should exist and grades as missing — and are
corrected too.
* **P4 still read "leaves exactly one buffer"**, the exact claim rev 6
corrected as false everywhere else in the framing. Restated to what it
actually pins: the file is in the *active window*. The test was
already written correctly; only the framing lied.
Framing rev 8.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Levi Neuwirth
7741cf806a