git diff errored to stderr on a malformed revision while wc -l counted empty
stdout, producing three confident IDENTICAL results that meant nothing. Had the
promoted trees actually differed, I would have reported the promotion clean.
The correct check is not 'how many files differ' but 'is the tree object the
same object' -- all three share hash 2acd9374.
All five defects are now visibly one shape: reading a PROXY instead of the
thing. One file instead of the operation, a variable name instead of the shape,
a scope instead of the whole, a pipe's exit instead of the program's, a line
count instead of object identity.
The async/future measurements were produced by a C stub in /tmp, and that
artifact was destroyed when the session worktrees were removed. The log then
asserted results with nothing behind them -- a claim inside an evidence record,
which is exactly what turns a chain of custody into a pile.
Rerun, not reconstructed. Rebuilding the missing file would have been a
fabrication with a fresh timestamp; rerunning produces new evidence with its own.
lang/tests/integration/fixtures/future.c the future, as a tagged heap object
lang/tests/integration/async_future.sh the harness, 6/6
ok unbound: synchronous, correct result
ok unbound: el_await on a non-future passes through, no crash
ok bound: does not crash
ok bound: the awaited result is correct
ok bound: the caller continues BEFORE the body finishes
ok bound: wrap returns in <10ms while the body takes 50ms
LABELLED AS A REPLICATION. The outcomes were already known when this harness was
written, so its expectations are NOT predictions committed in advance. Its
evidentiary value is that a third party can reproduce it, not that it was called
ahead of time. Recording it as anything stronger would corrupt the record it is
meant to repair.
The fixture also carries the P5 defect and its fix in a comment: the first
el_await dereferenced ->magic off an unvalidated slot and SIGSEGV'd on the
unbound path, sixty seconds after the same defect was diagnosed elsewhere in the
runtime.
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.
All four questions in the Open section are now answered by measurement rather
than by argument. Concurrency, error handling, parsing, numeric literals, and
the module system.
The note said serialization, text encoding, storage, network, concurrency and
emission had collapsed; the table still listed all six as live capabilities.
A document that contradicts itself one screen apart is worse than one that is
merely out of date.
Also renames 27 from Secrecy to Concealment. 'Secrecy' covered one of the three
things in that row and got the other two backwards: a hash is public and a
signature exists to be read. Integrity and authenticity are grounding under
adversarial conditions, which is row 16. Only concealment stands alone.
capabilities.md cited '== lowering to str_eq unless both operand names are in a
hardcoded int-name set' as the paradigm defect. That is wrong: __int_names comes
from type annotations, which is legitimate propagation. The real defect was 35
hardcoded builtin return types one layer down, and mislocating it hid a live
miscompilation of unannotated lets.
geometry-vs-code.md listed concurrency and error handling as open. Both are
answered: ordering is a partial order and coordination is the price of
forgetting; standing is signed, so not-known and known-false are opposite
directions rather than one boolean. Added the fourth proof form (adversarial
exactness) and recorded that form 1 no longer survives as a verdict -- every row
it justified was a basis, not a capability.
Also marked cross-cutting concerns as implemented rather than predicted.
They were written outside git, so the reasoning that produces the design
had no history and no way to be superseded. capabilities.md and
geometry-vs-code.md are both known stale at this commit; they are tracked
as-is so the corrections are visible as movement rather than as a rewrite.
bigmerge