Answers review round 2 on #188 @ 516bd35 -- three P1, two P2 -- integrated
to main @ 7586905 (#189, COHERENCE.md only; clean merge).
P1-1, the route cannot write to a locked buffer. Confirmed, and the
review's first repair option cannot work: reordering begin_edit's two
checks leaves ensure_writable running one line later, so a locked buffer
is still refused and only the reported error changes. Any admitting path
must not reach ensure_writable at all. Q#GB3 is reversed -- generated
writes get their own run_buffer_edit arm and never touch begin_edit -- and
new section 3.4 specifies the transaction: one &mut Buffer method, eight
named exits with the post-state of each, relock and editing_in_progress
clear unconditional, bounds pre-validated so an invalid range costs no
history, and history cleared iff the revision advanced (exact, because
revision bumps after the undo push and before the on_edit broadcast).
Proved along the way that no Lua runs inside a generated write:
LuaInterceptView implements only intercept_edit and inherits View::on_edit's
no-op default, so the only re-entrancy direction that needs a gate is
outward.
P1-2, disambiguation. New section 2.10 is the census: 19 units across 14
grep lines, five classes, arithmetic shown, each classified by reading its
enclosing function. Two sites break; between them six downstream consumers,
not three. The fourth listview consumer is listview.open's own
never-capture-a-panel guard, which fails inverted and silently -- it
captures the panel as its own q target, the exact loop its comment says it
prevents. compile's slots table is NOT affected (keyed by a module
constant, slot_for_buffer is id-based). New Q#GB18 routes both by owned
BufferId, and notes listview registers no on_removed so its new list must
compact on scan like dired's live_handles.
P1-3, unlock_generated. Withdrawn as written; both halves of the finding
hold. Sweep C found the mirror-image hole the review did not: the SHIPPED
set_generated_contents lifts a lock it did not install, so it can already
overwrite a live terminal identity buffer. Provenance (new Q#GB15,
generated_lock beside read_only) therefore earns its cost in both
directions rather than existing to make the unlock safe. Q#GB7 moves to
Stage 2, its claim narrows from "brick escape" to "the closure of the
capability { generated = true } adds", and the asymmetry with the standing
no-Lua-set_read_only policy is addressed directly: a provenance-bounded
unlock adds no reachable state that { generated = true } did not.
P2-4, criterion 6. Confirmed, and the framing cited the wrong precedent:
terminal_copy_mode_acceptance has zero dispatch_idle_for references. The
model is dired_acceptance.rs:969. dispatch_idle_for has six ways to return
false and the review named one, so the criterion now carries three halves
-- document-window premise, the gate, and acc16's positive control, which
rules out the other five clauses in one assertion.
P2-5, the path-backed refusal. Now exercised on all four surfaces with
guard misplacement as the explicit bite.
Sweep C (obligation 3) also found that read_only is one boolean serving
three policies: the generated lock, terminal identity, and -- as a reader
-- fold.rs:313's "is this a document buffer" test, pinned by
folding_acceptance.rs:570. Locking five families silently disables
pmacs.fold.fold on all five, which contradicts Q#GB3's own stated rationale
for preserving the unfold seam. New Q#GB16 names it and recommends
accepting it with a criterion rather than accepting it silently.
Two further corrections the review did not name. COHERENCE.md section 14's
listview list was corrected by #189 while revision 2 was open, so section
1.5 goes from owed to landed -- a merged correction is removed, not
restated. And *help* has two independent writers, src/help.rs:354 (Rust,
apply_edit, mark_clean) and default.lua:1239 (Lua, no mark_clean), each
with its own find-by-name and its own copy of the name constant, so the
inventory's headline is five mechanisms, not four.
Section 2.9's is_modified sweep is corrected a second time: seven
production consumers, two load-bearing. Revision 1 said two, revision 2
said four. The conclusion is unchanged but was reached twice from an
incomplete count.
New section 9b records the cross-lane boundaries verbatim and confirms
Q#DR25 against #171 revision 7 at fd7ae37. Revisions 1 and 2 never
mentioned Q#DR25 at all despite owning it; revision 3 claims it, and
carries #171's trap that dired_acceptance.rs:969's read-only status
assertion passes both before and after adoption.
Twelve acceptance criteria added or rewritten, each stating what it asserts
about content produced and the mutation that falsifies it. Stage 2 gains
criteria for the transaction's error paths specifically -- a leaked
editing_in_progress asserted through the NEXT edit, not the failing one,
because the failing call reports the same error either way.
Why revision 2 shipped these: it audited criteria against pre-images
(sweep A) and capabilities against who may use them (sweep B), but never
read the guards its own mechanisms had to pass through. begin_edit,
document_bytes and terminal/session.rs:305 were all cited elsewhere in the
tree and none was opened. The process fact for revision 4: for every seam
the design routes through, read the callee, not the caller's description of
it.
Status stays PROPOSED. No runtime code, no protocol change.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Lv428Fth9LRtffwJSsqH7T
Levi Neuwirth
8e032d75d8