3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	a875a1b2ee	fix(shapes): a semantic miss is not evidence — the divergence check stops reading it (#4208) ... Measured live: true instances of the service-unit canon score 0.68-0.71 against it at best, helpers 0.66-0.75 against unrelated snippets, and nothing reaches the 0.8 floor. The "conclusive miss" fired for nearly every body and silenced real divergences exactly as it silenced helpers. The stored miss basis, its flag withdrawal and the report plumbing are removed; the floor stays at 0.8 and the new-shapes-first ordering stays. False prompts are answered by judgment (exempt with a reason). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy	2026-09-22 08:27:15 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	19438cc894	fix(shapes): the capped meaning pass reads new shapes first, and its miss withdraws an early flag (#4208) ... Measured on the first live refresh after 91cde6c deployed: the version bump queued 1,533 rows for the semantic arm, the cap read 150 of them in row order, and all six shapes new since the previous refresh - the only rows flag_divergence acts on, and the highest ids - were flagged before the arm reached them. The gate silenced nothing because it never got to look, and since a flag persists until judged, a later conclusive miss could not take it back. - propose_for_repo sorts the semantic todo by _semantic_priority: unclassified before scoped, newest first. - flag_divergence withdraws a standing flag when the row now carries a conclusive miss; that evidence alone withdraws one. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy	2026-09-22 08:05:49 -04:00
bvandeusenandClaude Opus 5	91cde6c3e4	fix(shapes): let a measured meaning-miss silence a divergence prompt (#4208) ... #4204 gave the divergence check a structural gate, which silenced one of the five false prompts it was filed for. The other four are `def` helpers in a directory whose canon is an `async def` service unit. No refinement of `shape_form` reaches them: they differ from #2793's acceptance case — a hand-rolled sync `confirmDanger` where an async confirm helper is canon — only by the JOB they do, and a signature does not carry a job. The proposer's semantic arm already reads bodies per symbol, which is the comparison option 2 asked for and was thought to be missing. What it did not do was record its MISSES: a hit became `proposal_basis = "semantic"`, a miss left the row indistinguishable from one nobody had looked at. So `flag_divergence` could ask the proposer "do you agree this is the canon?" but never "did you check, and is it not?". `_semantic_canon` now reports whether an empty answer is evidence, and `flag_divergence` withholds the prompt when it is. The whole risk is in the negative, so only a conclusive miss is stored. A body too thin to embed, a row the per-refresh cap never reached, an arm that threw, and a result set that came back full — and may therefore have hidden the canon behind the limit — all stay "cannot tell" and still ask the question. That is the discipline `FORM_UNKNOWN` already enforces here: not knowing must make a check quieter, never more confident. `_SEMANTIC_LIMIT` is named for that reason; the number is load-bearing, not a tuning knob. No migration: `proposal_basis` is nullable Text with no CHECK constraint (verified in the model and across alembic/versions), so rule 36 does not bite. Nothing can mistake the miss for a proposal either — every reader keys on `proposed_snippet_id` or `proposal_group`, and `confirm_shape_proposals` requires the id non-NULL before it will confirm anything. `_PROPOSER_VERSION` 3 -> 4, per its own contract: rows remember the ruleset they were examined under, and without the bump no already-examined row would ever acquire a miss. Option 1 (widening `kind`) stays closed, on the merits rather than on cost: bucketing density by exact form takes the async canon out of a sync candidate's denominator and silences #2793's acceptance case by the identical mechanism, one layer down. The reasoning is on #4208. Tests: tests/test_divergence_meaning_gate.py pins the report contract, with the truncation case tested hardest — reading a cut-off as a negative would weaken the guard in proportion to how many snippets the operator has. The end-to-end discrimination is in test_integration_shape_classify.py on deliberately the SAME fixture as #2793's acceptance case, so the two runs differ in exactly one thing: whether the arm claims to have looked. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01821k5B3Ysecp9fNYs92Kuy	2026-09-21 20:35:55 -04:00