log v1 experiments: nineteen cycles, organised by the method that produced them

cycles/    one file per Ishikawa -> scientific method -> Six Sigma loop, named
           for the DEFECT not the fix, carrying the commit record as written at
           the time
findings/  what the cycles produced, cross-cut: live bugs, architecture answers,
           and defects in my own measurement

The organising finding is that predictions which came back FALSE produced every
significant result. Eleven of sixty-one failed, and those eleven found: that the
arity table was not drifted but 40% incomplete; that the AST traversal is
irreducible and only rules and judgments move; that guards could refuse through
the seam after all; and that routing el_bin_lookup through the gate did NOT fix
the SIGSEGV, because the fallback strlen was the hazard -- a wrong fix I would
otherwise have shipped as verified.

One cycle was run without committing predictions first and had to be discarded
as rigged. It is kept, in full, as 18-async-half-expressible.md.

docs/v1/experiments/cycles/14-keywords-that-reserve-nothing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+# keywords that reserve nothing
+
+One `Ishikawa → scientific method → Six Sigma` loop. The record below is the
+commit message as written at the time, before the outcome was known to anyone
+reading this file.
+
+## Record — `0143cc4`
+
+```
+ANSWER: is a grammar a convention, or a region?
+
+Both, at different layers -- and it is the same split as serialization: the
+convention is the BASIS, never the ACT.
+
+  lexeme -> token      `fn` means function-start because someone said so   CONVENTION
+  shape recognition    given tokens, which construct is this               REGION
+  source -> structure  parsing is transduction onto that basis             GEOMETRY
+  byte traversal       something must read them in order                   IRREDUCIBLE
+
+Three things push the ACT toward region rather than convention: ambiguity
+(a * b needs context; a grammar resolves it with the lexer hack, a region by
+neighbourhood), error recovery (nearest-region is free), and precedence, which
+is ordering along an axis with a conventional parameter.
+
+AND THE SHOULD GATE SAYS NO TO THE OBVIOUS MOVE
+
+Every other table this session moved to data. This one stays code. The keyword
+set is CLOSED by the language definition -- it does not leak the way an
+allowlist does -- and the lexer runs before the program is understood, so a
+program can never declare its own keywords. Externalising it costs file I/O on
+every compile and buys nothing. Same verdict as is_digit in ASCII.
+
+WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WRONG: five of 46 keywords were consumed by no parser or
+codegen path. sealed, activate, seed, protocol, impl. Each stole an identifier
+from users for nothing.
+
+SECOND SILENT MISCOMPILATION OF THE DAY. Using one did not fail to parse:
+
+    let seed = 42
+    let impl = seed + 1
+
+compiled CLEAN -- zero cc errors -- and printed 0 instead of 44. No diagnostic
+at any layer. Fixed by removing the five.
+
+A DEFECT IN MY OWN MEASUREMENT, caught before it did damage: my first pass
+checked only parser.el and reported `test` as inert too. codegen consumes it at
+4135 for --test mode, and the tree has 408 uses. Removing it would have broken
+every test in the suite. The measurement was re-run across all four consumers.
+
+100/100 native + 2 new, 31/31 integration, fixpoint ok.
+```
+
+## Record — `067dd40`
+
+```
+answer the parsing question: a grammar is a basis, and five keywords reserved nothing
+```