Repository navigation
research(#1031 K1-RDY): recovery of the accepted preregistration (WIP / UNVERIFIED; not frozen) - #1114
Closed
amaybaum wants to merge 6 commits into
Closed
research(#1031 K1-RDY): recovery of the accepted preregistration (WIP / UNVERIFIED; not frozen)#1114amaybaum wants to merge 6 commits into
amaybaum wants to merge 6 commits into
Conversation
…ery (WIP / UNVERIFIED) The accepted 313-line K1-RDY preregistration is posted verbatim on #1031 (c.6567522034, sha256 prefix a93f3f33f0c5a6e8), beside its review (c.6567537517). The authorized reconstruction therefore becomes a recovery. This commit adds the README only; the recovered text and the source ledger follow. Not frozen; nothing authorized beyond #1031 c.6649482038. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011zDyUSyEszk3JJx83uXKKq
… ledger (WIP / UNVERIFIED) PREREG-RECOVERED.md is lines 5-317 of #1031 c.6567522034, byte for byte: 313 lines, sha256 a93f3f33f0c5a6e8b2467312d184fa2d2e915296490948938c4dd7832c64bb63, equal to the recorded prefix. SOURCES.md gives the digest recipe, the identification with the accepted r3 (c.6567502036, c.6567537517), a concordance against F1-F9, R1, O-1(b), O-2 KEEP, O-3, Q1-Q6, K-1-K-18 and D-07(a), items open before freeze, points for review (§A.45 holds, #918 head drift, off-main references, RR-1 carry-forward, c.6567152798), ambiguities A-1 to A-3, and contradiction C-1 (c.6649454594's "not retained"). No reconstructed text is offered. Not frozen; no computation beyond text digests. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011zDyUSyEszk3JJx83uXKKq
amaybaum
changed the title
Owner
Author
|
Independent review of #1114 at exactly Verdict: ACCEPT WITH CHANGES
1. Byte identity: PASS
2. Identification chain: holds
3. Concordance: no substantive mismatch; four precision errors in
|
…RCES.md (WIP / UNVERIFIED) Applies review c.6649791225 (ACCEPT WITH CHANGES at 794ebeb) to the ledger only; PREREG-RECOVERED.md is unchanged (sha256 a93f3f33...). - §3.1: R1 row names the appended reason clause; F9(f) row notes that line 263 already requires heads recorded at freeze. - §3.2/§3.4: O-1 to O-3 have no owner-authored record on GitHub; K-1 to K-18's source is headed "Coordinating-session disposition" (C-2, C-3). - P-3: blindness and P1 lemma proofs only in #914 comments; HC-1 as provenance; reachability list; PF-2 (TA (c4) sentence) as a proposal. - P-4: Finding 9 to class-token parameter fields, Finding 12 to quoting K1-RDY's own owner decisions. - P-5: #914 c.6567198108 and HC-A's B-pl evaluations; line 312 scoped to the writer. - A-1: ruling (listed order) and parameter-field residual; PF-1 as a pre-freeze proposal. - §1: review-record digest is of lines 5-182 only; "what was run" includes the placement check and ls-remote reads. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011zDyUSyEszk3JJx83uXKKq
Owner
Author
|
Checkpoint Generated by Claude Code |
Owner
Author
Proposal for owner review — not adoptedK1-RDY: prospective ratification, V3 supersession, and the off- 1. Prospective ratification1.1 What the recovered text treats as a decision, and who is on record as deciding itThe search covered every "owner decision" phrase and every cited decision record in lines 1–313. Three kinds turn up:
Not a decision: D-19 (line 34) is master-matrix question D-19 (#914 c.6563412926, line 315), and K-14 answers it. 1.2 Exact text of the kind-A itemsFrom #914 c.6566997020, verbatim:
From #1031 c.6567502036, verbatim:
The text's own statement of O-1 to O-3 is lines 289–293. The alternatives the review offered were O-1 (a), (b) or (c); O-2 keep or drop; and O-3 confirm. 1.3 Proposed ratification wording (prospective, item by item)Preamble (one owner-authored comment, quoted in the round record with author and time, §A.42 item 7):
Items. One line each. The owner may adopt, amend or decline each separately.
What depends on the off- 2. V3 supersession: draft text for a new native round2.1 Shape (checked against §A.39, §A.42, §A.43 and
|
| File | Governs (base lines) | Content | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
A1-attribution.md |
6, 44, 84, 130, 144, 288 | "Owner decision" in these lines reads as "decision ratified by the owner on [date] ([record])". The original records are named as coordinating-session decisions | C-2, C-3; c.6650824861 |
A2-class-token-fields.md (PF-1) |
157–158 | "The class token carries [𝓘; branch; access]. For UNDECIDED it carries the set of k attained, for Z1-VOID the set of subtypes attained, and for VOID[row] the set of member rows that issued it. Member order fixes the order of reporting only and enters no token." This adopts the #1114 review's A-1 ruling (listed order) and removes the residual |
review c.6649791225 §4; owner direction #1031 c.6649717044 ("Resolve the P1 token's 'first' ambiguity explicitly before any freeze") |
A3-ta-c4.md (PF-2) |
206, 234, 243 | "Under π_0, uniform on the product space S, the configurations of disjoint sets of cells are independent; so at equal time π_0(E_{t_0}=0 | W_{t_0}=w) = q^{−|E|} for every w when W ∩ E = ∅." TA (c4) becomes provenance |
P-3 |
A4-holds.md |
229, 263 | Line 229: under AGENTS.md §A.45 rule 7 (owner, 2026-11-03) the formal holds are retired as a scheduling mechanism; lines 226–228 stand. Line 263: heads are recorded at F, including #918's move from fa32b043 to 44236326 (F9(f)). Owner choice: a mismatch at execution is (a) recorded in result.md and voids nothing, or (b) gives VOID[stage] |
P-1, P-2 |
A5-lemmas.md |
95–114, 163, 244 | The section 3 disposition, as adopted | section 3 |
A6-disclosure.md |
252, 312 | Line 312's "No candidate row was evaluated" is the writer's statement. Before acceptance, the review's HC-A evaluated π_0's and P3's B-pl rows, and #1031 c.6567152798 (cited by #914 c.6567198108) evaluated P3 on paper. HC-1 and HC-A–HC-D are labelled provenance: computational claims with no retained recipe, none a ground for any gate |
P-5; P-3 (HC-1) |
A7-trace.md |
all off-main references |
the §A.42 item 8 table: each reference in lines 1–313 classified as provenance, support on main, or a gap, with the gap closed (see 2.4) |
§A.42 item 8 |
Optional, from the review: name the schema file of line 192 (for example gate-table.json in the record directory) in an amendment.
2.4 §A.42 and §A.43 check of this design
- §A.42 item 1: the digest recipe in §12 names the command and the expected result. The commit is
Qonce landed. - Item 2: Issue comments are cited as provenance only. Every claim the gates use is in lines 1–313 or the amendments, all on
mainat landing. - Item 3: every full id in §12 must exist when it lands.
- Item 4: exact-bytes claims concern only
preregistration.md, which is onmain. - Item 7: ratifications, the
F/Edesignations and the gate-3 authorization are each quoted with author and time. - Item 8, the gaps that remain:
- the three lemma proofs (section 3);
- TA (c4) (A3);
- HC-1 (A6).
- Provenance only: RR at
e02544d5; TA, TD, MAP and P2; O-ACC; and OI ↔ QM equivalence: proof gate (dependency index; carries #885) #914's proposal and its review. - Support on
main:07d94f2c,02009693andaf1e9be2, which are on or reachable frommain.
- §A.43: the Issue is K1-RDY: paper-only readiness investigation under fixed selection rule #1031, with one guiding draft PR for the round. Pre-
Fcommits are control-plane only. Holds atFandEare explicit. Pushes and drafts do not authorize a dispatch, a designation or a merge. - §A.46 item 7: the lemma premises are validated (section 3) before
F.
3. The off-main proofs
What is affected. These lemmas are stated in lines 95–114 without proof:
-
Blindness lemma (lines 97–100). Used at line 163 (B-pl member rows are "BLIND by the blindness lemma") and at lines 244–245 (CC-SCOPE).
- Proof: OI ↔ QM equivalence: proof gate (dependency index; carries #885) #914 c.6564008455, the K1 proposal r3, lines 73–87 of the comment as posted.
- Checks: proposal review OI ↔ QM equivalence: proof gate (dependency index; carries #885) #914 c.6564018307 (F2; final check: "the stated conditions … are exactly what the proof uses"); K1-RDY: paper-only readiness investigation under fixed selection rule #1031 c.6567537517 ("correct as stated and scoped").
-
P1 lemma (named at line 244; underlies "i.e. the mixtures of the uniform measures on cycles", lines 72–73, and §5.3's reduction to cycle-uniform members).
- Its argument appears only as one sentence in OI ↔ QM equivalence: proof gate (dependency index; carries #885) #914 c.6564018307 (the proposal, c.6564008455 line 77, cites it by name, "confirmed by REV", a working record that is not retained): "invariance makes
P(E_t=0)constant, and invariant measures on a finite S are mixtures of cycle-uniform measures".
- Its argument appears only as one sentence in OI ↔ QM equivalence: proof gate (dependency index; carries #885) #914 c.6564018307 (the proposal, c.6564008455 line 77, cites it by name, "confirmed by REV", a working record that is not retained): "invariance makes
-
L-O (i), (ii) (lines 102–114). Used only in the §4 scope sentence and in K-16(b)'s reading. G2(b)'s H-sel content is computed directly (lines 133–135).
- (ii)'s argument is the proposal's L-O(b) (OI ↔ QM equivalence: proof gate (dependency index; carries #885) #914 c.6564008455, lines 113–120 of the comment as posted; review c.6564018307: "(b) is correct").
- (i) "restates r3's L-O(a) argument without the strict-form definition" (line 95), so no proof of (i) as stated exists anywhere.
L-O is added here to the review's list (blindness and P1 lemmas) because its proof is likewise off
main.
Option 1: land the proofs on main (recommended for all three)
All three are short and elementary. Form, under §A.42 item 8 and §A.46:
- One file:
LEMMAS.md. - Each lemma carries:
- its statement, quoted from lines 97–114 with the line numbers and the base digest;
- a self-contained proof written for that statement, labelled a paper derivation;
- the OI ↔ QM equivalence: proof gate (dependency index; carries #885) #914 arguments, cited as provenance, each with its comment id, body line range and the recorded digest prefix of the comment body (
6ef06b1695d02a14,74e4ead9793c6870); - a record on
mainof an independent review of the proof.
- Classification: the OI ↔ QM equivalence: proof gate (dependency index; carries #885) #914 comments become provenance; the support is the file on
main. - Where:
- (1a)
amendments/A5-lemmas.mdin the round's record directory. It is frozen atF, reviewed beforeF, and lands onmainwith the round, halted or not (S12lands the record). - (1b)
verification/programmes/oi-qm/reconstruction/k1-rdy-20261105/LEMMAS.md, landed through research(#1031 K1-RDY): recovery of the accepted preregistration (WIP / UNVERIFIED; not frozen) #1114 or a successor beforeD, so the round cites amaincommit. This is cleaner under §A.46 item 7, but it needs a merge authorization for that PR.
- (1a)
- Draft proofs (writer's paper drafts, unreviewed; they would be the text reviewed):
- P1 lemma. Let
φbe a bijection of finiteSandμa probability measure withμ(φ^{−1}A) = μ(A)for everyA.- Taking
A = {φ(s)}givesμ({s}) = μ({φ(s)}). Soμis constant along each cyclec, andμ = Σ_c μ(c) u_c. Conversely, every such mixture is invariant. - For any event
Aand tickt,P_μ(s(t) ∈ A) = μ(φ^{−(t−t_0)}A) = μ(A). In particularP_μ(E_t = 0) = P_μ(E_{t_0} = 0)for everyt. ∎
- Taking
- Blindness lemma. Under its hypotheses, by the P1 lemma,
P_μ(E_t = 0) = 1for everyt.V's celly_1lies inE:V_{t_0} = y_1(t_0)enters with coefficient 1 att = 0, andy_1 ∉ Σ(line 36's rule;V ∩ Σ = ∅).- So
V_t = 0μ-a.s. for everyt, and(V_{t_0}, …, V_{t_0+T})is a.s. the zero sequence. - Its conditional law given
s_Σ(t_0) = σis the point mass at zero for every positive-massσ, so no two laws differ andNB(μ)fails. ∎
- L-O (i).
μ_O(E_{t_0}=0 | W_{t_u}=w) = π_0(O∩{W=w}∩{E=0}) / π_0(O∩{W=w}). This equals 1 iffπ_0(O∩{W=w}∖{E=0}) = 0, iffO∩{W=w} ⊆ {E=0}, sinceπ_0has full support.- If moreover
{W=w} ⊄ {E=0}, then1[E=0]is nonconstant on{W=w}and constant onO∩{W=w}. ∎
- If moreover
- L-O (ii). On K1,
φis additive, soOtransported tot_0is a coset of a subgroupK_O ≤ S, and, sinceW_{t_u}is an additive functionL_Wof the state att_0(in B-ct throughφ^{−1}),{W_{t_u}=w}is a coset ofker L_W.- Their nonempty intersection is a coset of
K_O ∩ ker L_W, andπ_0restricted to it is uniform. - The image under the homomorphism
pr_Eis uniform on a cosetC_O(w)ofpr_E(K_O ∩ ker L_W). That coset lies insideC(w), a coset ofpr_E(ker L_W). - The two uniform laws are equal iff
C_O(w) = C(w). OtherwiseC(w)meets more than one coset of the smaller subgroup, and the class ofE_{t_0}modulo it is constant onO∩{W=w}but not on{W=w}. ∎
- Their nonempty intersection is a coset of
- P1 lemma. Let
Option 2: narrow the claims (fallback, per lemma)
Each narrowing is an amendment in A5-lemmas.md. None edits lines 1–313.
- Blindness lemma.
- Line 163 becomes: "In B-pl a member row is ABSENT if the member is not sharply ready; otherwise G4 decides
NBunder the member directly and issues its token by §5.4." - Line 244's "the blindness lemma (CC-SCOPE)" becomes: "CC-SCOPE's outcome is decided by G4 directly."
- §4's blindness lemma is kept as a stated cross-check that no gate uses, and is not presented as established.
- Effect: if the lemma holds, the tokens are unchanged, because G4 already decides
NB"for each sharpw" (lines 140–141). A gate that is not decided on paper ends UNDECIDED(G4), unless an enumeration is authorized.
- Line 163 becomes: "In B-pl a member row is ABSENT if the member is not sharply ready; otherwise G4 decides
- P1 lemma.
- Lines 72–73 become: "
𝓘= the mixtures of the uniform measuresu_con the cyclescof φ,π_0included." "All φ-invariant probability measures" is dropped as an unproved equivalence. - This changes how K-17(a) is implemented ("all φ-invariant probability measures"), so it needs an owner decision. Option 1 is strongly preferred: the proof takes three lines.
- Lines 72–73 become: "
- L-O.
- §4's scope sentence becomes: "L-O is not used by any gate. G2(b)'s H-sel content is computed directly (lines 133–135)."
- K-16(b)'s interpretive reading is then not asserted as a theorem.
Recommendation (writer's, not adopted)
- Option 1 for all three lemmas, as (1a) unless the owner wants research(#1031 K1-RDY): recovery of the accepted preregistration (WIP / UNVERIFIED; not frozen) #1114 landed first, then (1b).
- Each proof gets an independent review recorded on
mainbeforeF. - Option 2's blindness-lemma narrowing of line 163 is cheap enough to adopt alongside Option 1 as a belt-and-braces measure, because G4's direct decision then carries every token.
Not authorized by this proposal: ratification, a new round, a branch or PR, a freeze, a dispatch, a designation, execution, computation, a merge, or any change to PREREG-RECOVERED.md. The owner decides each item separately.
Generated by Claude Code
… amendments A1-A9, for review (WIP / UNVERIFIED) Owner, #1031 c.6651204512: "Prepare the proposed V3 supersession and amendments for independent review." Nothing is adopted, frozen or designated; PREREG-RECOVERED.md is unchanged (sha256 a93f3f33...). - proposed-k1-rdy-1/preregistration.md: lines 1-313 byte-identical to the recovered text; appended section 12 (base digest recipe, standing superseded as historical, precedence, the owner record c.6651204512 quoted with author and time, support on main, paper-only governed paths, v3-round and v3-governed-paths blocks, round K1-RDY-1, non-sealing). - amendments A1 (attribution; decisions quoted verbatim), A2 (class token fields), A3 (TA (c4) -> Proposition IND), A4 (holds and heads, owner option (a)), A5 (lemmas on main), A6 (disclosure; HC-1 provenance), A7 (section A.42 item 8 trace), A8 (class-rule scope), A9 (gate-table schema). No amendment carries a declaration block or near miss (checked with tools/v3_verifier.py's own parsers). - SUPERSESSION.md: file map, what is replaced and why, amendments, pre-F justification table, owner decisions OD-1..OD-7. Drafts sit on this linked research branch, not on a round PR (section A.43 item 1); the round PR from a fresh D would copy them byte for byte. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013T6pfKuv5mi3MXtKjH2tZb
Owner
Author
|
Checkpoint (WIP / UNVERIFIED, not frozen). The proposed V3 supersession has been drafted, as the owner's ruling of 2026-11-05 directed (#1031 c.6651204512: "Prepare the proposed V3 supersession and amendments for independent review"). This branch: head
Linked evidence branch:
New finding in §6, for review. The class rule's positive clause has the form ∃w∀λ. "Every member of 𝓘 positive" has the form ∀λ∃w. So the rule is sufficient (CR-3), its ABSENT clause is exact (CR-4), and its converse is not established (CR-5). At this instance the clause is never reached, because Status. Nothing has been adopted, frozen or designated. No enumeration, dispatch or merge has taken place. An independent review of both heads is running. The seven owner decisions the drafts raise (OD-1 to OD-7) will go to the owner with the review. Generated by Claude Code |
Owner
Author
|
Independent review of the V3 supersession drafts (read-only, model-authored, by the reviewer of #1119's lemmas). (1)
Changes:
(2) This PR at Confirmed:
Required:
Hygiene: all checks exit 0 at both heads, with 303 legacy records intact. Next: the writer applies these changes, followed by a delta check. The seven owner decisions OD-1 to OD-7, with OD-4's trade-off stated, then go to the owner. Nothing is adopted, frozen or designated. Generated by Claude Code |
Owner
Author
|
Correction to c.6653236579. The owner-direction record for the pre-F check is #1031 c.6653233009, not "c.6653171034" as written there. Generated by Claude Code |
…79, ACCEPT WITH CHANGES) (WIP / UNVERIFIED)
Lines 1-313 of proposed-k1-rdy-1/preregistration.md and
PREREG-RECOVERED.md are unchanged (sha256 a93f3f33...).
- A1: "Adopted form" paragraph (section 12's owner record governs D-07(a)
as the narrower labelling rule and O-3 with its qualification; the
O-ACC/CONVENTION-H-2s sentence is provenance, not adopted); omission
marked "> [...]"; base line 286 added to Governs.
- A4: owner's wording restored ("is not automatically classified as
VOID[stage]"); compared with the head recorded at F; 2026-11-05 values
given as drafting values, with a pre-F placeholder.
- A5: full precedence of lines 182-184; "proved" support conditional on
the #1119 review being recorded on main (OD-2).
- A7: (c1)/(c2) cited to PROOFS.md Proposition LEDGER, MR-pre:184-187
stated as I1 only; added D-19, review nits, POS-X, the review's
enumeration, #1031, O-RET/O-RDY, held work; traced the references made
by section 12 and A1-A9; "once A1 lands".
- A8: source quotes the owner direction #1031 c.6653233009.
- A9: row fields for G2 (a/T1/T2/H-sel), W's rule and inputs, the O-3
usefulness report, W-certified; B-pl's w is "".
- SUPERSESSION.md: OD-4 cost and the reserved-path alternative; ledger
row; A1 row; owner direction quoted; placeholders listed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013T6pfKuv5mi3MXtKjH2tZb
amaybaum
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 5, 2026
…79, ACCEPT WITH CHANGES) (WIP / UNVERIFIED) - README: the pre-F request is cited to the owner's direction #1031 c.6653233009 (amaybaum, Claude Code session chat, 2026-11-05), quoted verbatim, replacing the unrecorded attribution (required). - PROOFS.md section 7: Proposition LEDGER proving the equal-time bounds (c1)/(c2) of lines 60-62 from LEMMAS section 2.3, the chain rule and Proposition IND; marked "written proof, not independently reviewed" (recommended). Section 0 table and README table list it. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013T6pfKuv5mi3MXtKjH2tZb
…ed-path wording; budget-identity wording) (WIP / UNVERIFIED) - SUPERSESSION.md OD-4: a reserved tool path, and any workflow path, is named at F as an execution entry with ops including A (S7, G7); the tool may be added during execution under that authorization, a tool reviewed before F being preferable. - A7 MR row and SUPERSESSION section 4 ledger row: MR-pre:184-187 states entropy invariance under a bijection; I1/I2 are the working records' labels (provenance); no gate uses the budget identity beyond line 60's definition of D(mu). Lines 1-313 unchanged (sha256 a93f3f33...). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_013T6pfKuv5mi3MXtKjH2tZb
Owner
Author
|
Delta check passed. The drafts are ready for the owner's decisions. These are WIP drafts, not frozen.
This branch at
The first 313 lines are unchanged (sha256 Owner decisions OD-1 to OD-7 (SUPERSESSION §5), each with its recommendation:
Nothing has been adopted, frozen, designated, dispatched or merged. Generated by Claude Code |
Owner
Author
|
Owner authorization: K1-RDY OD-1 to OD-7 (administrative record). amaybaum, Claude Code session chat, 2026-11-05:
The decisions, as recommended in c.6653410073:
Next
After it lands, the round's PR is drafted from a fresh Generated by Claude Code |
This was referenced Nov 5, 2026
Owner
Author
|
The Generated by Claude Code |
amaybaum
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 5, 2026
…raft, not F) One control-plane revision under the owner's ruling #1031 c.6656645169 (delta review #1126 c.6656432806). Lines 1-313 of preregistration.md are unchanged (sha256 a93f3f33...bb63); no mathematical statement, hypothesis or conclusion changes. - F1, A5: the #1119 review proposed no statement change; the P1(c) clause is credited as its optional addition, verified by the delta check. Only the text between comment 6653737476's BEGIN and END markers is verbatim; the dated statement confirming 6525ad3 is a condensation. - F2, A5: provenance of the PROOFS.md review (sections 1-6 at 06d6ab3, #1114 c.6653236579; section 7 at 7c768f0, c.6653410073; blob 3801aba landed in 022ae8d, differing at D only in two status lines; on main REVIEW.md section 1), the statements reviewed listed exactly, and the owner's F2 ruling quoted. The pass-review condition is met at the internal-verification level for the listed statements only; CR-5 stays open. - Optional one-liners: A7 Governs notes the line 81 reading at D; section 12 says A11 is a reviewer checkpoint; A10 derivation files record author or session and access to the first derivation. - A4: the heads were re-read at 2026-11-05T11:20:15Z, unchanged. Drafting only. Not authorized: F designation, freeze, workflow dispatch, enumeration, execution, merge. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011zDyUSyEszk3JJx83uXKKq
amaybaum
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 5, 2026
…90), M1-M5 README.md only. SOURCES.md is unchanged (blob 973a6d1). - M1: add the API recipe for #1031 c.6567522034 and restate that row's class. From main alone, only the 313 lines' digest is established. - M2: add per-reference section A.42 item 8 rows for SOURCES.md's off-main references. Claims resting on them are not established from main. - M3: place the open items as #1031 c.6665340769 section 2 does. - M4: correct the review statements, citing #1114 c.6649791225 and #1150 c.6665794090. - M5: name #1031 as the accountable Issue (section A.46 item 4) for section 12's "accepted on 2026-11-02", with its remediation status. - Non-material: quote body lines 7 and 178 of #1031 c.6567537517. Correction to df86968's message: owner ruling #1031 c.6665461411 was posted at 18:05:55Z and reads "before 18:05Z", not "about 18:45Z". Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_011zDyUSyEszk3JJx83uXKKq
Owner
Author
|
Closing without merge (§A.43 item 6), under owner ruling #1031 c.6665461411. The closure-condition check is #1031 c.6667773188.
Generated by Claude Code |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Guiding draft PR for #1031's preregistration work, authorized as option (b) (reconstruction) in #1031 c.6649482038. Designated writer
writer-k1rdy. WIP / UNVERIFIED. Not frozen. Not for merge.Head:
e18b36e36af793bf5a0c393508e6b77b68818297. It applies revisions 1–7 of the independent review c.6649791225 (ACCEPT WITH CHANGES at794ebeb5) toSOURCES.mdand to this body.PREREG-RECOVERED.mdis unchanged.Finding: the accepted text survives verbatim, so this is a recovery
The activation finding c.6649454594 was correct that no branch holds the text. The text is posted on #1031 itself, though:
a93f3f33f0c5a6e8b2467312d184fa2d2e915296490948938c4dd7832c64bb63. That equals the recorded prefixa93f3f33f0c5a6e8in its header and in c.6567502036. The review confirmed byte identity withcmp.fa6c9e0430d4adf2…, matching the recorded prefix;f3a8bb42…;A reconstruction drafted beside the recovered text could differ from the accepted text only by reinterpretation. None is offered. Whether this recovery replaces the authorized reconstruction is for the coordinator and the owner. The review notes that the owner should acknowledge the relabelling.
Contents (
verification/programmes/oi-qm/reconstruction/k1-rdy-20261105/)PREREG-RECOVERED.md: the accepted text, byte for byte, with no header.SOURCES.md, containing:README.md: scope, authorization, status, limits.Sources
stage1/REVIEW.mdate02544d5.What was run (as in
SOURCES.md§1)git log --all -Ssearches andgit ls-remotereads of the held pull-request heads;tools/artifact_placement_check.py(OK).No hand check, enumeration, model calculation, Lean or workflow dispatch.
Not authorized
Freeze or designation, computation (including HC-A to HC-D), Lean, workflow dispatch, merge, promotion of any readiness result, new physical premises. The review lists what must change before the text could be frozen as a native V3 round (its §6). That needs separate owner decisions.