Skip to content

First claims-verification pass over draft.md §§1-8.5 #2

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
lvelho merged 2 commits into from
Sep 8, 2026
Merged

First claims-verification pass over draft.md §§1-8.5 #2

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
9b58d1a
Close od-005 and od-002; correct the draft's status block and pass se…
lvelho Sep 8, 2026
450a075
Run the first claims-verification pass over draft.md §§1-8.5
lvelho Sep 8, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
196 changes: 182 additions & 14 deletions docs/inherited-measurements.yaml
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -83,13 +83,15 @@ sources:
claims-verification pass. The draft calls it "the instance". Resolving a
figure means opening a file in a checkout of this repository at this SHA.
checkout_status: >-
NOT CLONED. No file in this repository has been resolved against it yet.
See gap-001, which is what makes that absence citable instead of merely
being the case.
CLONED 2026-09-08 into .reference/bio-3d-vision at
5f8e39f84a235bf53ace5789e739f0d51377344a (verified by rev-parse, not by
the clone succeeding). gap-001 is closed. Thirteen experiments confirmed
BY ENUMERATION of experiments/: exp001-exp005 and exp007-exp014, no
exp006.

- key: template
repo: visgraf/math-ai-method
sha: null
sha: 81a638ee3f650050164e09a42f5a0561af6caeef
sha_short: 81a638e
role: >-
What this repository was instantiated FROM, and a subject of §7 of the
Expand All @@ -105,6 +107,9 @@ sources:
abbreviation in its own field rather than written into `sha`, because a
7-character prefix in a field that promises 40 is the shape of a citation
that looks resolvable and is not. Expand it at the first clone.
EXPANDED 2026-09-08 on the first clone, as instructed. `sha_short` is kept
beside it so the abbreviation that circulated in the specification and in
README.md still resolves to something.

- key: active-stereo
repo: visgraf/active-stereo
Expand All @@ -114,7 +119,7 @@ sources:
record, whose loop never ran. The draft cites it for two things: the
failure that motivated the low-ceremony lane, and the constitution clause
that was false and talked a reviewer out of verifying.
checkout_status: NOT CLONED. Contributes no resolved measurement. See gap-001.
checkout_status: CLONED 2026-09-08 (default branch; no SHA pinned). See gap-001.

- key: bioeye
repo: visgraf/bioeye
Expand All @@ -124,7 +129,7 @@ sources:
not the perception-action loop. Listed with NO measurements attributed to
it, which is a fact and not an oversight: "we read it and it had nothing"
and "we never read it" are different, and this is the second.
checkout_status: NOT CLONED. Contributes no resolved measurement. See gap-001.
checkout_status: CLONED 2026-09-08 (default branch; no SHA pinned). See gap-001.

schema:
id: Stable. Never reused, never renumbered. Cite this.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -199,14 +204,23 @@ values:
measured_at_sha: null
environment: null
status: inherited
status_note: >-
RESOLVED AT SOURCE 2026-09-08 (od-002). Both former caveats are answered
and are kept below rather than deleted, because the disagreement is what
the entry was for.
notes: >-
TWO THINGS TO CARRY WITH THIS VALUE. First, the four stated verdicts sum to
21 and the total is 22; PARTIAL is a fifth verdict in the same table and is
not stated, so the sum is reconcilable by assuming exactly one PARTIAL —
AND THAT IS AN ASSUMPTION, not something the passage says. Second, it
disagrees with mn-002 on the total and on the confirmed count while
agreeing exactly on corrected (3) and under-qualified (8). Neither entry is
known to be wrong. Do not quote either without resolving them at source.
TWO THINGS TO CARRY WITH THIS VALUE, BOTH NOW SETTLED. First, the four
stated verdicts sum to 21 against a total of 22; the assumption that
PARTIAL = 1 closes it WAS CORRECT and is now read at source — see mn-003.
Second, it appeared to disagree with mn-002; it does not. mn-001 is the
pass's full table, mn-002 its substantive subset, and claims 19-22 are the
four bibliographic citations that separate them. Both entries are correct
as written and NEITHER IS SUPERSEDED.
WHAT THIS ENTRY ACTUALLY CAUGHT, since that is the reusable part: not an
error in either number, but a MISSING SELECTOR in the prose that quoted
them. The ledger could not have told you which was right — it told you
that two things claiming to be the same number were not, which is the only
job it has.

- id: mn-002
statement: >-
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -244,6 +258,99 @@ values:
entries with two values it is a disagreement a reader trips over.
DO NOT "FIX" THIS BY EDITING EITHER SENTENCE. Resolve it at source (od-002)
and add the resolution as a new entry.
RESOLVED 2026-09-08. The reconciliation above is the one that held, and it
was read at source rather than inferred: 22 minus the 4 bibliographic
citation checks (claims 19-22) is 18, and striking the 3 confirmed
citations from the CONFIRMED list of 10 leaves exactly 7. THE SOURCE'S OWN
WORD IS "substantive", NOT "load-bearing" — see met-002. The defect was in
report/draft.md's sentence, which was accurate about the FIRST of two
passes and read as describing the verification of the report; amended at
both cited locations in the same commit. This entry's value is unchanged
and correct.

- id: mn-003
statement: >-
The verdict class missing from the template's enumeration of the
instance's first-pass tally.
value: {partial: 1, claim: 19, total_reconciles_to: 22}
units: claims
n: null
conditions: >-
First pass only, verified in the source at d62693f. PARTIAL is defined in
the same table as "verified except for a named part".
provenance:
cited_as: >-
"**PARTIAL** | **1** | 19 (verified except its page range)" — the fifth
row of the first-pass count table.
source: >-
instance: report/claims-verified.md, count table and section "## Citations"
@5f8e39f84a235bf53ace5789e739f0d51377344a
experiment: null
run_id: null
measured_at_sha: d62693f
environment: null
status: inherited
notes: >-
CLOSES THE 21-OF-22 ARITHMETIC GAP recorded against mn-001, and does so
independently of the denominator question that od-002 settled. The
template's prose says "22 claims were checked: 10 confirmed, 3 corrected,
8 under-qualified, 0 unsupported" — four classes summing to 21 against a
stated total of 22. The source's table has five classes and the fifth is
PARTIAL = 1. 10+3+8+0+1 = 22.
THE DROPPED CLASS IS NOT INCIDENTAL. Claim 19 is Bajcsy 1988, PARTIAL
because its page range does not resolve — three variants appear across
otherwise reliable sources and the source's recommendation is to cite by
DOI and issue and "Do not pick one of the three". An enumeration that
drops PARTIAL drops the one verdict recording that a citation could not be
settled, which is precisely the class a reader most needs to see.

- id: mn-004
statement: >-
The first claims-verification pass over report/draft.md, sections 1 to 8.5.
value:
claims_checked: 42
confirmed: 22
corrected: 5
under_qualified: 8
unsupported: 6
partial: 1
units: claims
n: >-
Sections 1 through 8.5 of report/draft.md. Sections 8.6-8.8 are the first
author's, first-person, and out of scope; they were not read for claims.
conditions: >-
Resolved against .reference/ checkouts: bio-3d-vision @5f8e39f and
math-ai-method @81a638e, both pinned and verified by rev-parse;
active-stereo @3f7a263 and bioeye @e908170, both UNPINNED default branches
— claims 2, 5 and 46 rest on those two and are bounded by gap-003.
Verdict taxonomy is met-001, carried and unexamined.
Repeated figures counted once, with all locations named, per the rule in
report/claims-verified.md.
provenance:
cited_as: The count table in report/claims-verified.md
source: report/claims-verified.md, in this repository
experiment: null
run_id: null
measured_at_sha: 9b58d1a
environment: null
status: measured
notes: >-
THE ONLY `measured` ENTRY THIS REPOSITORY WILL EVER HAVE, and the reason
the status was kept reachable. Everything else it handles is inherited.
THE HEADLINE IS NOT THE PASS RATE. It is that the recurring defect DIFFERS
IN KIND from the one the instance's own pass found. The instance reported
scope-and-metric — a correct number quoted without its band. This document
is second-order, restating figures already condensed once, and its
characteristic error is TRANSCRIPTION: iterations read as days (claim 24),
gaps closed read as gaps open (claim 41), a criterion experiment counted as
a stimulus experiment (claim 29). The number survives; the noun attached to
it does not.
FALSIFIER 2 FIRED. Under-qualified does not substantially outnumber
corrected here — 8:5, against the instance's 8:3. Under-qualified is NOT
depressed (8 in both); corrected is elevated, which is the second-order
structure above. The prediction this generates, recorded before anyone
tests it: a third-order document should show more corrections still.
FALSIFIER 3 FIRED HARDEST, and see gap-004.

# - id: <prefix>-001
# statement: <one line>
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -401,7 +508,21 @@ methods:
One line: `load-bearing: <the rule>`. The draft's strongest single
sentence — the asymmetry that §5 says justifies the whole method — rests on
this word.
status: carried_unexamined
examined_2026_09_08: >-
EXAMINED AT SOURCE, AND THE WORD IS NOT THE SOURCE'S. The instance's pass
says "substantive", and its operative meaning is exact and checkable:
a claim about the project, as opposed to a bibliographic citation check.
The pass's 22 claims split 18 substantive / 4 citations at a heading
boundary ("## Citations"), so the selector is not a judgement call at all —
it is a section.
"LOAD-BEARING" IS THE DRAFT'S OWN COINAGE AND IT IS WEAKER THAN WHAT IT
REPLACED. It reads as "important", which is a judgement, where the source's
selector was structural. That substitution is the defect: not a wrong
number, a criterion that got vaguer in transit and took a denominator with
it. This is the same shape as met-000's carried statistical bar — a
criterion nobody had written down being read as something stricter or
looser than it was.
status: examined_at_the_first_claims_pass

# ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# GAPS
Expand All @@ -417,6 +538,12 @@ methods:
gaps:

- id: gap-001
status: CLOSED 2026-09-08
closed_by: >-
All four sources cloned into .reference/ at the pinned SHAs (bio-3d-vision
at 5f8e39f, math-ai-method at 81a638e, active-stereo and bioeye at their
default branches, unpinned — see the note in `sources`). The
claims-verification pass in report/claims-verified.md was run against them.
statement: >-
No source repository has been cloned or read. Every `sources` entry is
marked NOT CLONED, and no figure in report/draft.md has been resolved to a
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -453,6 +580,47 @@ gaps:
draft.md it returns section numbers ("4.1", "8.6") and its `uniq -f2`
field-counting collapses the result to a single line. See od-003.

- id: gap-003
statement: >-
active-stereo and bioeye are cloned at their default branches, not at a
pinned SHA. No SHA for either is recorded in `sources`.
why_it_is_load_bearing: >-
Claims 2, 5 and 46 in report/claims-verified.md rest entirely on
active-stereo, and claim 2 is a VERBATIM QUOTATION checked to the line
(CLAUDE.md:141). A line number against an unpinned branch is a citation to
whatever main says the day it is read — the exact failure the `sources`
block's own comment warns about. The claims are verified; their citations
are not durable.
what_would_close_it: >-
Record active-stereo @3f7a263 and bioeye @e908170 in `sources` and re-check
the three claims against those SHAs. Cheap, and it must happen before the
draft is typeset.

- id: gap-004
statement: >-
The method has no channel for a specification that was correctly rejected
before work was spent. Six claims in the pass are UNSUPPORTED and four of
them are unrecordable BY CONSTRUCTION, not merely unrecorded.
why_it_is_load_bearing: >-
It bounds §4.2 and §5 of the draft, which rest on "three specifications
were rejected on false assumptions" (claim 17) and call the rejections
"the clearest case in the project of a rule paying for itself". A
rejection that stops work before it starts produces no branch and no
commit: docs/workflow.md states that a specification is the only artifact
of the loop that leaves no trace, and that no specification was ever
committed in the instance.
THE ASYMMETRY IS THE FINDING: the workflow records what work PRODUCED and
has no channel for work it correctly PREVENTED — so the method's own
strongest evidence is the kind it systematically destroys. state.yaml's
`falsifier_verdicts` block exists to keep the falsifier after the
specification evaporates; the same argument extends to rejections and has
not been extended. See od-006.
what_would_close_it: >-
A `rejections` block, written at the moment a specification is rejected,
carrying the assumption that was false and what it would have cost. It
cannot be backfilled — the four instances behind claims 17 and 20 are
already gone.

# - id: gap-001
# statement: <what was not measured>
# why_it_is_load_bearing: >-
Expand Down
Loading
Loading