bigmerge
c6ba0677f0
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.
2.2 KiB
2.2 KiB
the emitter discards what it knows
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 — a5af871
EXPERIMENT: let the compiler write down what it already knows
HYPOTHESIS: attribution is redundant for static structure. Codegen sees every
construct-to-function relation at emission time and discards it, so the only
way to learn the structure back is to run the program and read what it
reported. That is instrumentation compensating for erasure.
PREDICTIONS, committed before running:
1 derivable at compile time with no runtime call expected TRUE
2 complete for guards and exits (invisible today) expected TRUE
3 answers it for code that has never executed expected TRUE
4 deterministic expected TRUE
5 makes the entry beat redundant expected FALSE
RESULT: 5/5 as predicted. From a program that was never executed:
authenticate guards_at_entry login my_auth
durable injects_at_exit save persist_now
authenticate guards_at_entry critical my_auth
durable injects_at_exit critical persist_now
manager injects_at_entry critical engram_boundary_beat
Prediction 5 held: the relation records that a boundary COULD be crossed, the
beat records that it WAS. They are different facts and neither replaces the
other.
CONSEQUENCE, and it undercuts the first pass on iteration-1: construct identity
was available at compile time all along. With relations recorded at build, the
runtime needs only the function name and attribution becomes a join rather than
a payload. The counter-argument is that the payload is self-describing while
the file must be pinned to the artifact or the two drift and attribution is
silently lost — which is the same conclusion as "compile against a manifold
revision and record the revision in the artifact", reached from the other side.
Written to a file rather than the engram on purpose: a compile that consults a
manifold produces different output from identical source at different times.
The file is content-addressed; the engram ingests it. Determinism preserved,
mechanism proven.