From 79d82376f1986e64523520ec61e80422de52bd95 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Claude Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 11:14:12 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 1/3] =?UTF-8?q?board:=20land=20the=20R2IL=20session's=20an?= =?UTF-8?q?swers=20=E2=80=94=20D-RLR-4=20re-scoped,=20palette/FnIndex=20te?= =?UTF-8?q?nsion=20resolved?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cross-session coordination with the r2il-machine-semantic-contract-v1 owner session. Three answers landed, plus one methodological finding earned in the verification pass. 1. D-RLR-4 RE-SCOPED, not retired — at the owner session's explicit request. The storage half ("how does a session store R2IL") is answered by that plan's §4, now tracked as D-R2IL-1 via lance-graph #1155; my §E was a thinner independent restatement and now defers to it. What survives is the half §4 never touches and that just went live: what does the lance-graph-java membrane consume, now that the 0x87..0x8B loco band is retracted and ogar_loco::TERNLOG (FnIndex(0x86)) is minted-but-unconsumed. Live context is lgj #70, which blocks the BELNAP_JOIN mint. 2. The §C/§D vs §4-R4 tension flagged in #1152's §F.6 is RESOLVED — no conflict. R4's target is one-FnIndex-per-macro, which would burn slot space, never FnIndex as addressing. ogar_loco::TERNLOG proves it concretely: one FnIndex whose call value byte is the 8-bit truth table, so a single address covers all 256 combinators (ogar-loco/src/lib.rs:607, vocabulary.rs:92-98). Palette-as-vocabulary and FnIndex-as-address in one shipped symbol. The §C/§D verdict stands unchanged. 3. Board rows for the r2il plan were filed by its owner (#1155, D-R2IL-1..5) rather than by me — correctly, since it is their plan. Root cause was worse than missing rows: the plan carried no D-ids at all, so STATUS_BOARD had nothing to hold. Also: the cross-repo citation audit that session recommended was run against this plan's §C. All eleven cited symbols are PRESENT at 5e2cb31d; the September retraction stranded none of them. New EPIPHANIES entry E-A-CROSS-REPO-SYMBOL-GREP-IS-ONLY-AS-FRESH-AS-THE-SIBLING-CHECKOUT-1 sharpens their rule with the precondition it needs. Following their advice I grepped for TERNLOG and got zero hits in both trees — and nearly wrote up that a peer's central claim failed verification. The OGAR checkout was 10 commits behind; after fetching, every one of their claims verified exactly. A cross-repo symbol grep answers "is this in the tree I have", never "does this exist". Fetch first, then grep, then read the hit's surroundings. Board writes post-checked per the never-truncate law (EPIPHANIES 25610->25671); supersession index regenerated after the board writes and verified current. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016b33swuXE23hKtqxsHu9p1 --- .claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md | 61 +++++++++++++++++++ .claude/board/STATUS_BOARD.md | 2 +- .../rubicon-loco-rung-cognitive-fabric-v1.md | 32 ++++++++++ 3 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md b/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md index 9f42dad05..7672da490 100644 --- a/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md +++ b/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md @@ -1,3 +1,64 @@ +## 2026-09-03 — E-A-CROSS-REPO-SYMBOL-GREP-IS-ONLY-AS-FRESH-AS-THE-SIBLING-CHECKOUT-1 — the null was my clone, not their claim + +**Status:** FINDING (measured; the near-miss was real and is reproduced below). +**Confidence:** High — every step verified against a current tree, and the +stale-tree result is exactly reproducible by rewinding the sibling clone. +**Extends:** the cross-repo citation rule proposed the same day by the +`r2il-machine-semantic-contract-v1` owner session — *a citation to a removal +reads identically to a citation to the thing removed, so grep the sibling tree +for the SYMBOL, not the epiphany id.* That rule is right. This entry adds the +precondition it needs to be sound. + +**What happened.** Acting on that advice, I audited this plan's cross-repo +citations by symbol. Two greps returned zero hits for `ogar_loco::TERNLOG` — +first across `lance-graph/crates/`, then across the local OGAR checkout. Zero +hits in both trees, for a symbol a peer session had just asserted was minted +and live. The tempting write-up was ready: *a peer's central claim does not +survive verification.* + +It was my clone. `/home/user/OGAR` was **10 commits behind** `origin/main`. +`ogar-loco` exists exactly where the dependency says it does, and after a fetch +every claim verified precisely: + +| claim | verified at | +|---|---| +| `TERNLOG = FnIndex(0x86)` | `ogar-loco/src/lib.rs:607` | +| `0x87..0x8B` retracted, reserved-not-reclaimable | `lib.rs:596` | +| zero consumers | only `vocabulary.rs` arity/name registration — declared and addressable, never called | +| `BELNAP_JOIN` / `INFO_GAIN` / `STANCE_ENTROPY` / `EpistemicBassin24` | 0 hits each | + +`vocabulary.rs:1431` corroborates the retraction independently, recording a +re-pin *"to 96 (−5): only the generic TERNLOG"* — the −5 being the band. + +**The rule, stated so it does not have to be re-earned.** A cross-repo symbol +grep answers *"is this symbol in the tree I have"*, never *"does this symbol +exist"*. The two coincide only when the sibling checkout is current, and in +this workspace a sibling can be ten commits stale within a day. So: + +> **Fetch the sibling tree, then grep. A zero-hit result on an unfetched +> checkout is a statement about your clone.** + +This is the same shape as `E-A-RUNG-WRITE-PATH-ALREADY-SHIPPED-IN-A-SIBLING-REPO-1` +(below): an absence asserted from an incomplete view. That entry's failure was +not looking in the sibling repo at all; this one's would have been looking at a +stale copy of it. The correction is one line of `git fetch` in both cases, and +the cost of skipping it is asserting that a colleague's verified work does not +exist. + +**Sharpened, the cross-repo citation check is three steps, not one:** +1. `git fetch` the sibling — otherwise steps 2-3 measure your clone. +2. Grep for the **symbol**, not the epiphany id or the doc anchor. +3. Read the hit's surroundings — a symbol can survive inside a *retraction* + heading, which is the failure the original rule was written against. + +**Also verified in the same pass, and clean:** all eleven cross-repo symbols +this plan's §C cites (`ogar_loco`, `DOMAIN_FLOOR`, `ladder_program`, +`domain_stack_arity`, `ewa_sandwich`, `EvidenceMask`, `ReasoningBand`, +`CausalTopology`, `counterfactual`, `EpistemicMode`, `for_rung`) are PRESENT at +`5e2cb31d`. The September retraction did not strand any of them. Recorded +because a clean audit result is evidence too, and because the next session +should not have to re-run it blind. + ## 2026-08-31 — E-A-CORRECTION-CAN-SUBSTITUTE-ONE-WRONG-NOUN-FOR-ANOTHER-1 — three readings of one mechanism, and the source named itself the whole time **Status:** FINDING (verified against source at `cc0046f8`; every claim carries diff --git a/.claude/board/STATUS_BOARD.md b/.claude/board/STATUS_BOARD.md index ce8e994fd..7932b9dfc 100644 --- a/.claude/board/STATUS_BOARD.md +++ b/.claude/board/STATUS_BOARD.md @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ earns a row because it has a merged artifact of its own. | D-RLR-1 | **the one first Wave** — non-rung-4 horizon → loco Frozen atom → alpha → receipt → Evaluation/Revision → #879 → replay | Queued | | D-RLR-2 | rung-4 census closure: confirm no PHYSICAL hit at scale (`F-RLR-1`) | Queued | | D-RLR-3 | atom census → which candidates earn loco addresses (Shannon has no exemption) | Queued | -| D-RLR-4 | R2IL/r2sleigh membrane readiness vs lance-graph-java (`F-RLR-6`) | Queued | +| D-RLR-4 | **RE-SCOPED 2026-09-03** by the R2IL plan's owner session, who asked that it be kept rather than retired. The STORAGE half is answered — `r2il-machine-semantic-contract-v1` §4 settles how a session stores R2IL, now tracked as `D-R2IL-1` (lance-graph #1155); my §E is a thinner restatement and defers. What REMAINS is the half that plan never touches and that just went live: **what does the lance-graph-java membrane consume**, now that the `0x87..0x8B` loco band is retracted and `ogar_loco::TERNLOG` (`FnIndex(0x86)`) is minted-but-unconsumed? | Queued — re-scoped, not closed. Live context: lgj #70 blocks the `BELNAP_JOIN` mint; lgj's mask-RISC arc reaches `ogar_loco` in its Wave 2 | | D-RLR-5 | **RE-SCOPED TWICE 2026-08-29.** Round 1 corrected the model (alpha is rung-level STORAGE, not a delta budget). Round 2 corrects the SCOPE: a real write path for a `rung: u8` field already shipped in a sibling repo (`MedCare-rs::medcare-nodesoa::alpha`, PR #565/#590, built directly on `lance_graph_contract::canonical_node::{NodeGuid,NodeRow}`, Lance-persisted). Now: (a) confirm whether `AlphaStamp.rung` is the same ladder `RungLevel` names or an unrelated attention-depth scale, (b) name the `(classid, rail)` each of rungs 1–10 would occupy IN `lance-graph`'s own contract, (c) decide whether `lance-graph` should consume the MedCare-rs pattern rather than re-derive it | **HELD, narrower reason than previously stated.** `D-ACR-2` (Rung-ladder rail UNMINTED, HTT §8 Q3) still blocks a `lance-graph`-native row. `D-ACR-3` ("no ontology-owned write path exists") is true only because `lance-graph` owns no live `NodeRow` spine to attach one to — the write path itself is proven, once, in `MedCare-rs`, against real data. See `EPIPHANIES.md` `E-A-RUNG-WRITE-PATH-ALREADY-SHIPPED-IN-A-SIBLING-REPO-1` | | D-RLR-6 | smallest invariant making Revision unavoidable per completed cycle (`F-RLR-5`) | Queued | diff --git a/.claude/plans/rubicon-loco-rung-cognitive-fabric-v1.md b/.claude/plans/rubicon-loco-rung-cognitive-fabric-v1.md index 3e5269b21..bf3047faf 100644 --- a/.claude/plans/rubicon-loco-rung-cognitive-fabric-v1.md +++ b/.claude/plans/rubicon-loco-rung-cognitive-fabric-v1.md @@ -124,6 +124,22 @@ DOMAIN_FLOOR}` and provides: represents Frozen atoms AND composed programs. A new carrier is NOT justified, and proposing one is a STOP.** +> **⊘ TENSION RESOLVED 2026-09-03 — no conflict, and a shipped symbol proves +> it.** #1152's §F.6 flagged a possible contradiction between this verdict +> (`classid/vocabulary + u8 FnIndex` already carries Frozen atoms and composed +> programs) and `r2il-machine-semantic-contract-v1` §4 R4 (*"the macro +> vocabulary is a PALETTE, not a `FnIndex` per macro"*). I declined to +> adjudicate it from a partial read. The owner session has, and the answer is +> that R4's target is **one FnIndex per macro** — which would burn the slot +> space — never FnIndex as the addressing mechanism. +> +> `ogar_loco::TERNLOG` settles it concretely: **one `FnIndex`, with the call's +> value byte carrying the 8-bit truth table, so a single address covers all 256 +> combinators** (`ogar-loco/src/lib.rs:607`, `vocabulary.rs:92-98`). That is +> palette-as-vocabulary and FnIndex-as-address in one shipped symbol. This +> verdict stands unchanged. + + | candidate | status | |---|---| | recipe kernels | **EXISTS + CALLABLE** via `FnIndex` | @@ -156,6 +172,22 @@ contract**, with per-host adapters — never a lance-graph-specific thinking DSL and never an R2IL→pseudo-IR transcode unless the operator contract demands it. **Measure readiness before designing the membrane** (`D-RLR-4`). +> **⊘ RESOLVED 2026-09-03 by the plan's owner session (cross-session).** The +> storage half of this section — *how a session stores R2IL* — is answered by +> `.claude/plans/r2il-machine-semantic-contract-v1.md` §4, now tracked as +> `D-R2IL-1` (lance-graph #1155). This §E verdict was an independent, thinner +> restatement of it, arrived at because that plan carried **no D-ids at all**, +> so `STATUS_BOARD` had nothing to hold and it was invisible to a +> mandatory-reads pass. It defers to §4; it does not compete with it. +> +> **`D-RLR-4` is re-scoped, NOT retired** — at the owner session's explicit +> request. What survives is the half §4 never touches: **what does the +> lance-graph-java membrane consume**, now that the `0x87..0x8B` loco band is +> retracted and `ogar_loco::TERNLOG` = `FnIndex(0x86)` is minted-but-unconsumed +> (`ogar-loco/src/lib.rs:607`; the reservation at `:596`). That question went +> live with lgj #70, which blocks the `BELNAP_JOIN` mint. + + --- ## §F Alpha channel = the rung-level STORAGE. It is not written today. From c6eede734d8b55b81139974e0b2608457a25ed96 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Claude Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 11:22:13 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] =?UTF-8?q?board:=20correct=20my=20own=20untracked-pla?= =?UTF-8?q?n=20undercount=20=E2=80=94=20I=20reported=201/208,=20and=20the?= =?UTF-8?q?=20criterion=20is=20undetermined?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit The r2il session corrected a claim I relayed to them: that their plan was "the ONLY genuinely untracked standalone plan in the tree." It was not. Their sweep found 53 of 208. Their framing of my error is the part worth keeping — a hand sweep "undercounted in the direction that feels like completion." I sampled five candidates from a four-day mtime window, checked them by hand, and stated the conclusion about the whole tree. Attempting to verify 53 produced the larger finding: five defensible readings of "untracked", measured at 79d82376, give 91 / 61 / 32 / 125 / 34. None reproduces 53, and a sub-check diverges too (3DGS-* is 20 files under both case-foldings where their census reports 19). This entry does not claim their number is wrong; it claims the number is not determined until the criterion is, and that two careful sessions produced six figures for one question on one tree. Consequence for the CI gate they proposed (on the SUPERSESSION-INDEX precedent, so the count cannot regrow): the proposal is right and its first deliverable is not the workflow. A 4x range across reasonable definitions means the grep IS the design; a gate shipped before the criterion is pinned encodes an arbitrary choice and then reports a stable-looking number forever. Two constraints such a gate must satisfy, both learned rather than assumed: diff-scoped not tree-scoped (dozens of existing plans fail every criterion today, so a tree-scoped gate turns main red for every session and gets disabled within the hour), and the criterion should track DISCOVERABILITY rather than tidiness — the INTEGRATION_PLANS entry is the path a session actually consults, which argues for the 61 figure as the causal one. Proposed, not ruled; it is a scope call across sessions. I did NOT build the gate. Pinning the predicate is a cross-session decision and building it now would bake in my own arbitrary pick. EPIPHANIES 25671->25738 (longer; never-truncate falsifier passes); supersession index regenerated after the board write and verified current. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016b33swuXE23hKtqxsHu9p1 --- .claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md | 67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+) diff --git a/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md b/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md index 7672da490..798ff6d89 100644 --- a/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md +++ b/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md @@ -1,3 +1,70 @@ +## 2026-09-03 — E-A-HAND-SWEEP-UNDERCOUNTS-TOWARD-DONE-AND-THE-CRITERION-IS-THE-WHOLE-DESIGN-1 — I reported 1 of 208; five defensible definitions give 32 to 125 + +**Status:** FINDING (measured, five variants, each reproducible from the +command in this entry). +**Confidence:** High on the measurements; **explicitly unresolved** on which +number is canonical — that is the point of the entry. +**Corrects:** my own claim, relayed cross-session, that +`r2il-machine-semantic-contract-v1.md` was *"the ONLY genuinely untracked +standalone plan in the tree."* + +**The error, and its direction.** I noticed five candidate plans from a +four-day `mtime` window, checked them by hand, found four declared an owner +plan and one did not, and reported **1 of 208**. The r2il session's own sweep +found **53 of 208**. Their framing is the part worth keeping: a hand sweep +*"undercounted in the direction that feels like completion."* The sample was +selected by recency, not by coverage, and the conclusion was stated about the +tree. + +**Then reconciliation failed, and that is the larger finding.** Attempting to +verify 53, five defensible readings of "untracked" were measured at +`79d82376`: + +| criterion | count | +|---|---:| +| no `D--` anywhere in the plan file | **91** | +| no `INTEGRATION_PLANS.md` entry naming the file | **61** | +| both of the above | **32** | +| no D-ids, **or** none of its D-ids on `STATUS_BOARD` | **125** | +| has D-ids but none of them on `STATUS_BOARD` | **34** | + +**None reproduces 53.** A sub-check diverges too: `3DGS-*` is **20** files +under both case-foldings, where their census reports 19. So this entry does +not claim their number is wrong — it claims the number is **not determined +until the criterion is**, and that two careful sessions produced six different +figures for one question on one tree. + +**Consequence for the CI check that was proposed** (a gate on the +`SUPERSESSION-INDEX` precedent, so the count cannot regrow): the proposal is +right, and its first deliverable is **not the workflow**. Five reasonable +definitions span **32 to 125 — a 4× range** — so the grep IS the design, and a +gate shipped before the criterion is pinned would encode an arbitrary choice +and then report a stable-looking number forever. Pin the criterion first, +state it in the workflow file, and only then write the check. + +Two constraints such a gate must satisfy, both learned here rather than +assumed: + +- **Diff-scoped, not tree-scoped.** Whatever the criterion, dozens of existing + plans fail it today. A gate that fails them turns `main` red for every + session and gets disabled within the hour. It must judge only plans a PR + ADDS or MODIFIES — stop the bleeding, do not bill the past. +- **The criterion should track DISCOVERABILITY, not tidiness.** What actually + went wrong in the r2il case is that a 1,427-line plan was invisible to a + session doing the mandatory reads, which is why its question got re-derived. + The index entry is the discovery path a session consults; + `STATUS_BOARD` rows are per-deliverable and secondary. That argues for the + `INTEGRATION_PLANS`-entry criterion (61) as the causal one — proposed, not + ruled. + +**The generalizable rule.** A census answers a question only as precisely as +its predicate is pinned. "How many plans are untracked" has no answer; "how +many plans lack an `INTEGRATION_PLANS` entry" has exactly one. When a count is +about to become a decision — a backfill, a gate, a scope call — write the +predicate down first, because otherwise every later re-run silently measures +something else and the disagreement looks like drift in the tree rather than +drift in the question. + ## 2026-09-03 — E-A-CROSS-REPO-SYMBOL-GREP-IS-ONLY-AS-FRESH-AS-THE-SIBLING-CHECKOUT-1 — the null was my clone, not their claim **Status:** FINDING (measured; the near-miss was real and is reproduced below). From 6787a957465f524b1146b90b31112ef2509ca852 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Claude Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2026 11:26:04 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 3/3] =?UTF-8?q?board:=20fix=20all=20three=20Codex=20P2=20f?= =?UTF-8?q?indings=20on=20#1157=20=E2=80=94=20two=20falsify=20claims=20I?= =?UTF-8?q?=20relayed=20from=20a=20peer=20session?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit All three verified at source before acting. Two of them falsify assertions the r2il session made and I repeated without checking against their own plan. F1 (EPIPHANIES) — the new cross-repo rule as written would not have reproduced the audit that produced it. It said "fetch the sibling, then grep"; git fetch updates remote-tracking refs and FETCH_HEAD but does NOT touch the working tree, so the grep still reads stale files. What actually recovered the result was fetch PLUS rebase. Rule corrected to fetch-and-fast-forward, or grep the fetched ref directly (git grep origin/main). A rule stated one step short of what was done fails for its next reader — published, ironically, in the entry that warns against asserting from an incomplete view. F2 (plan §C/§D) — TERNLOG does NOT settle the macro-palette question. It is a shared-core op whose operand is an immediate truth table; R4 concerns a macro-id ordinal into the System/Learned/Explore palettes, and the r2il plan's own §6 W3 routes {Learned,Explore}Palette[id] to R2IL x BPE microcode. Those are different mechanisms. The owner session said "TERNLOG settles it" and I repeated it. Narrowed to the claim that survives: R4 is not an argument against FnIndex-as-addressing, and a parameterized primitive shows one address can carry many behaviours. How COMPOSED macros are addressed is W3's question and stays open. F3 (plan §E + STATUS_BOARD) — the D-RLR-4 re-scope's premise is falsified by the owner session's own plan. They asked me to keep the row because their plan "never touches" the lgj membrane. It does: §6 W5 is a lance-graph-java facade wave (PcodeOp/Instruction/Varnode as lazy views over handles + masks), §6 W3 owns the palette->microcode route, and the Java/Valhalla section pins the call as (program_ref, mask_handle) -> mask_handle. D-R2IL-5 already tracks that wave order, so queueing D-RLR-4 as re-scoped would create a second owner for one membrane. D-RLR-4 is therefore HELD pending cross-session resolution rather than re-scoped-and-queued. Not closed — its requester asked it be kept, and that is theirs to decide once they see the contradiction. If the post-retraction question is genuinely new (it postdates their 2026-08-25 plan) it attaches to D-R2IL-5, not here. These edits amend text added earlier in this same unmerged PR; nothing merged was rewritten. Supersession index regenerated after the board writes and verified current. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016b33swuXE23hKtqxsHu9p1 --- .claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md | 14 ++++++++-- .claude/board/STATUS_BOARD.md | 2 +- .../rubicon-loco-rung-cognitive-fabric-v1.md | 28 +++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 41 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md b/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md index 798ff6d89..53cd890fe 100644 --- a/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md +++ b/.claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md @@ -102,8 +102,18 @@ grep answers *"is this symbol in the tree I have"*, never *"does this symbol exist"*. The two coincide only when the sibling checkout is current, and in this workspace a sibling can be ten commits stale within a day. So: -> **Fetch the sibling tree, then grep. A zero-hit result on an unfetched -> checkout is a statement about your clone.** +> **Fetch AND fast-forward the sibling tree — or grep the fetched ref +> directly (`git grep origin/main`) — then search. A zero-hit result +> on a stale working tree is a statement about your clone.** +> +> **⊘ CORRECTED pre-merge (Codex, #1157).** This rule first read *"fetch, then +> grep"*, which does not work and would not have reproduced the audit that +> produced it: `git fetch` updates remote-tracking refs and `FETCH_HEAD`, it +> does **not** touch the working tree, so a subsequent `grep` still reads the +> stale files. What actually recovered the result here was `git fetch` **plus +> `git rebase origin/main`**. A rule stated one step short of what was actually +> done is a rule that fails for its next reader — and this one was published in +> the same entry that warns against asserting from an incomplete view. This is the same shape as `E-A-RUNG-WRITE-PATH-ALREADY-SHIPPED-IN-A-SIBLING-REPO-1` (below): an absence asserted from an incomplete view. That entry's failure was diff --git a/.claude/board/STATUS_BOARD.md b/.claude/board/STATUS_BOARD.md index 7932b9dfc..de9e19172 100644 --- a/.claude/board/STATUS_BOARD.md +++ b/.claude/board/STATUS_BOARD.md @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ earns a row because it has a merged artifact of its own. | D-RLR-1 | **the one first Wave** — non-rung-4 horizon → loco Frozen atom → alpha → receipt → Evaluation/Revision → #879 → replay | Queued | | D-RLR-2 | rung-4 census closure: confirm no PHYSICAL hit at scale (`F-RLR-1`) | Queued | | D-RLR-3 | atom census → which candidates earn loco addresses (Shannon has no exemption) | Queued | -| D-RLR-4 | **RE-SCOPED 2026-09-03** by the R2IL plan's owner session, who asked that it be kept rather than retired. The STORAGE half is answered — `r2il-machine-semantic-contract-v1` §4 settles how a session stores R2IL, now tracked as `D-R2IL-1` (lance-graph #1155); my §E is a thinner restatement and defers. What REMAINS is the half that plan never touches and that just went live: **what does the lance-graph-java membrane consume**, now that the `0x87..0x8B` loco band is retracted and `ogar_loco::TERNLOG` (`FnIndex(0x86)`) is minted-but-unconsumed? | Queued — re-scoped, not closed. Live context: lgj #70 blocks the `BELNAP_JOIN` mint; lgj's mask-RISC arc reaches `ogar_loco` in its Wave 2 | +| D-RLR-4 | **RE-SCOPED 2026-09-03** by the R2IL plan's owner session, who asked that it be kept rather than retired. The STORAGE half is answered — `r2il-machine-semantic-contract-v1` §4 settles how a session stores R2IL, now tracked as `D-R2IL-1` (lance-graph #1155); my §E is a thinner restatement and defers. What REMAINS is the half that plan never touches and that just went live: **what does the lance-graph-java membrane consume**, now that the `0x87..0x8B` loco band is retracted and `ogar_loco::TERNLOG` (`FnIndex(0x86)`) is minted-but-unconsumed? | **HELD pending cross-session resolution** (was: Queued — re-scoped). Codex on #1157 falsified the re-scope's premise from the owner session's own plan: §6 **W5** is a `lance-graph-java` facade wave, §6 W3 owns the palette→microcode route, and the ABI call is pinned at `:743` — all tracked by `D-R2IL-5`. Queueing this row would create a second owner for one membrane. Any genuinely new post-retraction gate attaches to `D-R2IL-5`. Not closed: its requester asked it be kept | | D-RLR-5 | **RE-SCOPED TWICE 2026-08-29.** Round 1 corrected the model (alpha is rung-level STORAGE, not a delta budget). Round 2 corrects the SCOPE: a real write path for a `rung: u8` field already shipped in a sibling repo (`MedCare-rs::medcare-nodesoa::alpha`, PR #565/#590, built directly on `lance_graph_contract::canonical_node::{NodeGuid,NodeRow}`, Lance-persisted). Now: (a) confirm whether `AlphaStamp.rung` is the same ladder `RungLevel` names or an unrelated attention-depth scale, (b) name the `(classid, rail)` each of rungs 1–10 would occupy IN `lance-graph`'s own contract, (c) decide whether `lance-graph` should consume the MedCare-rs pattern rather than re-derive it | **HELD, narrower reason than previously stated.** `D-ACR-2` (Rung-ladder rail UNMINTED, HTT §8 Q3) still blocks a `lance-graph`-native row. `D-ACR-3` ("no ontology-owned write path exists") is true only because `lance-graph` owns no live `NodeRow` spine to attach one to — the write path itself is proven, once, in `MedCare-rs`, against real data. See `EPIPHANIES.md` `E-A-RUNG-WRITE-PATH-ALREADY-SHIPPED-IN-A-SIBLING-REPO-1` | | D-RLR-6 | smallest invariant making Revision unavoidable per completed cycle (`F-RLR-5`) | Queued | diff --git a/.claude/plans/rubicon-loco-rung-cognitive-fabric-v1.md b/.claude/plans/rubicon-loco-rung-cognitive-fabric-v1.md index bf3047faf..5afc03d1d 100644 --- a/.claude/plans/rubicon-loco-rung-cognitive-fabric-v1.md +++ b/.claude/plans/rubicon-loco-rung-cognitive-fabric-v1.md @@ -138,6 +138,17 @@ and proposing one is a STOP.** > combinators** (`ogar-loco/src/lib.rs:607`, `vocabulary.rs:92-98`). That is > palette-as-vocabulary and FnIndex-as-address in one shipped symbol. This > verdict stands unchanged. +> +> **⊘ NARROWED pre-merge (Codex, #1157) — `TERNLOG` does NOT settle the macro +> question, and the owner session's "settles it" is an overclaim I repeated +> without checking it against their own plan.** `TERNLOG` is a shared-core op +> whose operand is an *immediate* truth table; R4 concerns a **macro-id ordinal +> into the `System`/`Learned`/`Explore` palettes**, and that plan's §6 **W3** +> routes `{Learned,Explore}Palette[id]` → R2IL×BPE microcode. Different +> mechanisms. What survives is the narrow claim this section actually needs — +> R4 is not an argument against FnIndex-as-addressing, and a parameterized +> primitive shows one address can carry many behaviours. **How COMPOSED macros +> are addressed is W3's question and stays open.** | candidate | status | @@ -186,6 +197,23 @@ and never an R2IL→pseudo-IR transcode unless the operator contract demands it. > retracted and `ogar_loco::TERNLOG` = `FnIndex(0x86)` is minted-but-unconsumed > (`ogar-loco/src/lib.rs:607`; the reservation at `:596`). That question went > live with lgj #70, which blocks the `BELNAP_JOIN` mint. +> +> **⊘ PREMISE FALSIFIED pre-merge (Codex, #1157) — and the source is the owner +> session's own plan.** The re-scope above rests on their statement that their +> plan "never touches" the lgj membrane. It does: §6 **W5** is literally +> *"`lance-graph-java` facade: `PcodeOp`/`Instruction`/`Varnode` as lazy views +> over handles + masks"*, §6 **W3** owns the palette→microcode route, and the +> Java/Valhalla section pins the call as `(program_ref, mask_handle) → +> mask_handle` (`r2il-machine-semantic-contract-v1.md:222`, `:221`, `:743`). +> `D-R2IL-5` already tracks that wave order. +> +> **Consequence:** as written this re-scope creates a SECOND queued owner for +> one membrane. `D-RLR-4` is therefore **HELD pending cross-session +> resolution**, not re-scoped-and-queued. If the post-retraction question — what +> lgj consumes now that `0x87..0x8B` is gone and `TERNLOG` sits unconsumed — is +> genuinely new (it postdates the plan, which is 2026-08-25), it attaches to +> `D-R2IL-5`, not here. I am not closing a row its requester asked me to keep; +> I am declining to queue it against territory their own §6 already owns. ---