| Comment: | citations: re-section four claims from §4.1 to sync §7.7
All four assert that the artifact hash names the uncompressed, fully reconstructed bytes, and cited §4.1 for it. No §4.1 in any of the five drafts says that -- §4.1 defines the container. The statement is sync §7.7 L1465, "Integrity hashes reconstructed artifact bytes, not wire payload." These were the ones the re-key pass returned unresolved rather than guessing at: wrong section, not drifted lines, so no line range would have been right. Naming the draft because §7.7 also exists in artifact-format. Baseline 481 to 477. test 3495/3495, fmt. Issue #18. |
|---|---|
| Timelines: | family | ancestors | descendants | both | sub-manifest |
| Files: | files | file ages | folders |
| SHA3-256: |
f1e10128f8ce2a8b473fd575212c9dd8 |
| User & Date: | dmestas on 2026-08-05 21:55:32.561 |
| Other Links: | branch diff | manifest | tags |
|
2026-08-05
| ||
| 22:19 |
citations: re-key 368 in the sync pair; cover appendices
Of 475 candidates, 368 were located by reading the draft text that supports what each comment claims and survived adversarial review; 23 were refuted and 84 returned unresolved. sync.zig and sync_test.zig now resolve at 86 percent, up from 39. The refusals are the useful part. Several proposals verified byte-for-byte and still pointed at the wrong sentence; one range truncated away the half that carried the claim; one cited text that REFUTES its comment. The unresolved are mostly mis-sectioned rather than mis-lined -- §9.1 cited for push/pull card grammar, §10.1 for the client-version pragma -- and one where an erratum inverted the claim, so the COMMENT is now wrong and no line range would fix it. Those are left for a section decision. The checker also could not see `§A.1`-style citations at all: 36 of them, unverified while looking checked, 25 of them broken. Appendix headers use `Appendix A. Title` and `A.1. Title`, so both forms are recognised now. Baseline 477 to 144, over a population that grew 781 to 817. test 3495/3495, fmt. Issue #18. check-in: 18e5fa7bbb user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest | |
| 21:55 |
citations: re-section four claims from §4.1 to sync §7.7
All four assert that the artifact hash names the uncompressed, fully reconstructed bytes, and cited §4.1 for it. No §4.1 in any of the five drafts says that -- §4.1 defines the container. The statement is sync §7.7 L1465, "Integrity hashes reconstructed artifact bytes, not wire payload." These were the ones the re-key pass returned unresolved rather than guessing at: wrong section, not drifted lines, so no line range would have been right. Naming the draft because §7.7 also exists in artifact-format. Baseline 481 to 477. test 3495/3495, fmt. Issue #18. check-in: f1e10128f8 user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest | |
| 21:16 |
citations: re-key 31 verified line ranges, baseline 512 to 481
Each was located by reading the draft text that supports what the code comment actually claims, then adversarially re-checked against a verbatim quote of those lines. Clamping a range into its section would satisfy the checker while pointing at the wrong paragraph, so the checker alone was never the gate. Of 33 proposals, 2 were refuted on exactly that ground -- the quote verified byte-for-byte and still did not state the claim -- and 4 came back unresolved because no draft's §4.1 states what those comments assert at all. Those are mis-sectioned, not line-rotted, and need a section decision rather than a re-key. Also restores container.zig's `decode` doc block, which 7d26a31305 left stranded above `decodePrefix` when that function was inserted between the comment and the function it describes. test 3495/3495, fmt. Issue #18. check-in: e5db38a6df user: dmestas tags: sub-manifest | |