2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
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