Review round 2 confirmed everything central from round 1 as fixed and
raised four P1s. All four accepted; both requested sweeps run. Rebased
onto `7586905`.
P1-1, the ownership boundary was stale. Revision 2 described PR #171 as
"OPEN, STALE, 153 commits behind, under re-scout" claiming the rename
side only. Re-checked directly: #171 is at revision 7, `fd7ae37`,
merge-base `ad41cf1`, zero commits behind, and its revision 6 had
assigned rename AND delete to Stage 2a with the opposite policy --- file
deleted, modified buffer kept alive and orphaned, that orphaning named
as accepted residue. Two lanes, opposite answers, same event. The
settled split is now carried verbatim in the framing and the ledger, and
#171 revision 7 has adopted it from its side.
P1-2, the LSP failure-handling claim was wrong. The spec does not assign
`Abort` to resource-op-bearing edits. Recovery is described by the
client's advertised `workspace.workspaceEdit.failureHandling`; `Abort`
is one of four strategies, `Transactional` covers all operations, `Undo`
attempts rollback, and only `TextOnlyTransactional` degrades to abort
when resource changes are present. pmacs advertises none, so the spec
assigns pmacs no strategy at all. Section 1.7 and B2 now rest on
verified repository behaviour --- the reproduced partial batch --- not
on borrowed protocol authority.
P1-3, Q#RD7 had no implementable seam. Three gaps confirmed by reading:
`_parse_workspace_edit` is called one line above `apply_workspace_edit`
and is fallible, so the proposed wrap left "always answers" untrue;
`append_to_errors_buffer` is private and a Lua preflight rejection never
reaches Rust, so the promised logging was not implementable from where
it was promised; and acceptance 13 tested the response but not the
trace. Q#RD7 is rewritten around one seam at the server-request
boundary, and of the two options offered this revision picks wrapping
parse-plus-apply rather than narrowing the claim.
P1-4, clean duplicate reconciliation is now Q#RD10: validate every
match, reconcile today's first exact-path match only. Widening would
enlarge the parked lifecycle defect Q#RD5 exists to contain; the
surviving clean duplicate is named as residue handed to #171.
External-claim sweep. Every non-repo claim is now listed in a new
section 1.15 with its evidence. One was a paraphrase standing in for a
quote: "in Emacs `kill-buffer` on a modified file-visiting buffer
prompts". It is true, but the gate is `INTERACTIVE`, defined as
`(NILP (Vexecuting_kbd_macro) && !noninteractive)` --- keyboard present,
not `call-interactively` --- so eglot's programmatic kill does prompt in
a normal session and does not in batch or during a keyboard macro. The
revision 2 sentence was right for a reason it never established and
false in two environments it never considered.
Cross-lane sweep. Q#RD8 said mode (d) needs its own lane; it has one now
--- #171's `reconcile_delete` composes both removal phases. Q#RD6 claims
the shared walk query explicitly so the duplicate resolves in one
direction. And `pmacs.fs.remove`, guarded by neither lane and verified
to have zero production callers, is named as explicitly out of scope
with its owner rather than left to read as covered.
Still PROPOSED. No runtime code. Implementation begins only after
explicit user approval.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Lv428Fth9LRtffwJSsqH7T
Levi Neuwirth
aea5097890