3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	04775c3496	fix(drafter): the base rate counted a dataclass and an async service unit as comparable things (#4208) ... A CORRECTION TO THIS ISSUE'S OWN PLAN, first, because the plan was wrong in a way that would have cost the acceptance case. #4208 recommended widening `kind` past `css | sym` to carry the form, calling the denominator the deeper win and a migration the price. Two things: 1. THE MIGRATION IS NOT NEEDED. The issue says density "is computed from stored rows and `shape_form` only runs on read". `canon_density` does `select(CodeShape)...scalars().all()` and filters to the directory in PYTHON; `signature` is a stored column; `canon_form(siblings, ...)` on the next line already derives form from those rows. Bucketing the denominator costs a list comprehension. 2. WIDENING `kind` WOULD BREAK MILESTONE #2793's ACCEPTANCE CASE. If `kind` separated `fn` from `async-fn`, density would bucket them apart — which does silence #4204's four `def` helpers, as claimed. Apply it to a hand-rolled SYNC `confirmDanger` in a directory where an async confirm helper is canon: the canon leaves the candidate's denominator, nothing dominates, no flag. That is the flag the milestone exists to produce, and it is the same inversion the first form gate made, one layer down. So option 1 is not expensive-but-right, it is wrong; and option 2 (compare meaning) is not the interim, it is the only lever. `confirmDanger` beside an async confirm helper and `is_registered` beside a service unit are identical at every structural level — same family, same form contradiction, same density. They differ only in whether the candidate does the canon's JOB, and no signature carries that. WHAT THIS SHIPS is the part that is right and provable: an honest denominator. `comparable_siblings` narrows the count to rows whose family does not contradict the candidate's, using `families_conflict` — the same predicate the gate uses, so the count and the verdict cannot drift into disagreeing about what comparable means. "372 judged siblings" stops counting a dataclass, a constant and an async service unit as three comparable things. NARROWED BY FAMILY, NOT FORM, for the reason above: `fn` beside `async-fn` stays a fair question. An unreadable sibling STAYS COUNTED — dropping it would shrink `judged`, raise the share, and fire the check more on the directories it can read least. Every unknown-form decision in this module goes that way. Density is now per candidate rather than per kind, cached on (kind, form). TWO BUGS THIS CHANGE HAD, both caught before CI and both pinned: - I passed a FAMILY where `families_conflict` reads a FORM, so `shape_family("callable")` returned "" and the narrowing was a silent no-op that still read as applied. The regression guard deliberately uses a callable: `type` is both a form and a family name, so testing with it proves nothing and the bug hides. - My new `_Row` in the test file shadowed the one already there — same fields, different `snippet_id` default — silently breaking three passing `canon_form` tests. Reused the existing class. A duplicate definition quietly changing a neighbour's meaning is this file's own subject. The residue test's docstring said separating the four needs "widen `kind` or a comparison of meaning". Corrected: they are not alternatives. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy	2026-09-21 01:33:45 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	a4883c8ac1	fix(ledger): divergence asks at family level — the first gate was inverted (#4204) ... CI run 7090 caught this; the unit suite could not. Integration job 25763 — `test_a_second_confirm_dialog_is_detected_and_named`, the acceptance case of milestone #2793. WHAT I GOT WRONG. The previous commit gated BOTH halves of the ledger on `forms_agree`. That is right for stamping and backwards for divergence, because the two assert opposite things: STAMPING says "this IS that canon". Agreement in form is evidence FOR the claim, so demanding it is correct. DIVERGENCE says "this is NOT the canon that dominates here — did you mean to?" A form MISMATCH is the PREMISE of that prompt. Requiring the candidate to match the canon silences the check precisely where it belongs. So #2793's case stopped firing: a hand-rolled sync `confirmDanger` in a directory where an async confirm helper is canon read as `fn` against `async-fn`, disagreed, and was dropped. `flag_divergence` returned 0 where the test demands 1, and the write-time check returned nothing where it must name the canon. That is a real flag the milestone exists to produce, and my change removed it. THE FIX. Divergence now gates at FAMILY level — callable {fn, async-fn}, type, value, css — and only on contradiction. A sync function beside an async one is still a fair question. A frozen dataclass told to build from an async service function is not a question at all. WHAT THIS DOES NOT FIX, asserted rather than commented so it fails the day it changes (`test_how_many_of_the_five_the_divergence_gate_actually_silences`): of #4204's five false prompts this silences ONE. `Point` is a type against a callable canon. `_p`, `get_point`, `is_registered` and `sources_expected_to_emit` are callables like the canon and still ask — and at the signature level they are indistinguishable from the #2793 case above, so nothing readable here can separate them. That needs #4204 option 2 (widen `kind` past `css | sym`) or a comparison of meaning rather than form. The stamping half — `_RESEMBLE_MIN` 0.80 and the graded burden — is unchanged and unaffected by this failure. It is also the half that matters more: loose stamping is what manufactures the density the divergence check reads as authority. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy	2026-09-20 21:26:12 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	947203fa44	fix(ledger): a canon is only urged on a shape that could be it (#4204) ... Two halves of one defect, found while writing #3431 and measured on a second project. THE DIVERGENCE CHECK WAS A BASE RATE. `dominant_canon` answers "what is most common in this directory" and never "is this that" — the candidate's signature was not examined at all. With `kind` carrying only `css | sym`, a frozen dataclass, a module constant, a sync predicate, a class and an async service function are all siblings, so the prior was not merely the best signal, it was the only one. Writing a registry module of pure helpers produced five prompts to build them from the `async_session` service canon. THE AUTO-STAMP HAD NO FLOOR. `elif sid in resembles` took any score at all: 0.69 asserted as confidently as 0.95, and the number went into the reason line without ever being compared to anything. Worse, the score is computed against the WHOLE PAYLOAD, so one number spoke for every symbol in the file. On Portal that recorded `class SessionAbsent`, `def build_channel`, `async def attach` and a dozen test functions as instances of one snippet — 17 rows under #3283, which then made that directory "canon-dense" and started instructing every later writer in it. The two compound: loose stamping manufactures the density the divergence check reads as authority. Both are fixed by one primitive. `shape_form` derives a coarse form — css / type / async-fn / fn / binding — from the signature, on READ. `kind` is part of the row identity, so widening that column needs a migration and a re-extract (#4204 option 2, still the principled fix); deriving costs nothing and is reversible. Every caller asks `shape_form`, so the day the column carries the answer it returns that. THE BURDEN SCALES WITH THE EVIDENCE, and getting this wrong was the first version. A by-name reference — the payload names the canon's symbol — is strong and needs only the absence of contradiction; demanding positive agreement there silenced it whenever a shape's definition was not in the payload (an Edit rather than a Write), turning strong evidence into none for a reason unrelated to the code. A resemblance score is weak and must positively agree. `canon_form` reads the form a canon's own judged rows agree on, and returns unknown when they disagree. That makes the halves cooperate: a canon already poisoned by loose stamping — Portal's #3283 — falls silent instead of flagging anyone else. `forms_agree` requires BOTH sides known, so an unreadable signature makes the checks quieter rather than more confident. `_RESEMBLE_MIN` is 0.80 rather than the retrieval floors near 0.70: those decide whether to SHOW a record, where being wrong costs a glance; this decides whether to RECORD a claim unattended, where being wrong misinstructs everyone who writes there after. Caught by the tests, not by review: a first pass required `const`/`let`/`var` before a binding, so every Python module constant read as unreadable and a whole form was silently excluded from both checks. Not addressed: rows already carrying a wrong snippet_id are not undone by a guard at the point of classification (lesson #4202). Portal's 17 keep producing dominance until something re-judges them. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy	2026-09-20 21:16:51 -04:00