CB-REV-0001: the adversarial review, and it was not approvable
Thirteen challenges, five FATAL, all five conceded. Nothing had reached
ground-game, which is the only reason this is a correction and not a
retraction.
The worst: `Reactive` was not "greedy with one preference changed". It
differed in five, including SpendFreedom — ranked 95 unconditionally
against greedy's `95 if gated else 0` — so the seat burned its Freedom
token in round one of every game. A second change to the exact mechanism
under study, and every number in CB-EV-0031 was measuring it. The pass
claimed ADR-0018's one-varying-parameter discipline in its own workplan
while violating it. GreedyPolicy::rank is now public and the policy
delegates, overriding one match arm, so the control is structurally true.
Withdrawn entirely: "H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker". Disabling
H1-B under the corrected policy changes the arm count by exactly zero.
The pass hedged the wrong variable — it disclaimed "the number 2" and
defended "the direction", and the direction is what failed. The
supporting inference was invalid anyway: final Stress cannot show who
armed, because DarvoEnded resets the stage and REVERSE gives its owner -2.
Corrected: criterion 1 was failed on the greedy column while the pass's
own printed table showed 31-1000 arms in the other columns — the
selective-column move, in the file that names it. "Peak Stress was 1" was
a maximum over StressSet payloads, not held state (true: 2); the baseline
game count was 1,600 not 3,200; and "a reckless policy plays identically
to a careful one" is refuted by this repo's own rank-95 policy.
Inert controls replaced, each verified red against the reviewer's own
mutation: the baseline hash test compared two identically-constructed
states (serde(skip) on variant left 57/57 green); the `unchanged:` test
checked 3 of 7 entries and passed with SOLVE made illegal; H1-A's ordering
and H1-B's OU-cancel path had no test at all.
edition-check now covers catalog.yaml and rules_delta.yaml, whose digests
CB-WP-0038 claimed and never recorded — the review found it and reported
it unverified rather than absent, which was the right call.
Still open: H1-B on the DARVO extra-Attack path is untested, regulation.rs
still skips setup failures silently, and round-5 arms are counted though
they can never act.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 02:02:35 +02:00
# CB-REV-0001 — adversarial review of the H1 measurement
The tier-L review CB-WP-0038 owed (InnerLoop Step 2). One round: challenge,
then response. Run 2026-08-08 by a separate agent against
CB-WP-0038/CB-EV-0030 and CB-WP-0039/CB-EV-0031.
Close the three items CB-REV-0001 left open
H1-B on the DARVO extra Attack: the delta says the extra Attack shares
the Attack resolution "so it can self-soothe too if Stress >= 4".
CB-WP-0038 asserted it because the code shares resolve_attack; nothing
tested it, and CB-EV-0031's withdrawn mechanism story ran through that
exact path. Now tested and mutation-verified.
Round-5 pressure did not reach the score, and this was a real defect
rather than a reporting one. end_round_events scored from `self` while
H1-A's pressure went into `work`, and score() reads Stress for the GR-E03
and GR-E04 tiebreaks — so the final round's pressure was invisible to the
two modes CB-EV-0030 reports on. Fixed. The test uses the case that bites:
uniform pressure preserves an ordering, so it takes the clamp at 5 to
collapse a gap and change who wins.
Inert arms reported separately: a DARVO arm at the End of Round 5 can
never advance a stage, and criterion 1 is about DARVO mattering. 29 of 363
at 2p, none above — matching the reviewer's independent figure, so
criterion 1 stands as met.
That fix produced one more wrong-subject error, caught before reporting:
the first inert-arm metric tested `g.rounds >= 5`, a property of the GAME
rather than the EVENT, so it marked every arm in every completed game
inert and briefly read as "criterion 1 fails after all". An arm is inert
when no RoundEnded follows it.
regulation.rs no longer skips setup failures silently: they are counted,
and a short cell fails an assertion rather than printing a number a reader
has to notice — which is the credit CB-EV-0030 §3 took and half earned.
All thirteen challenges closed. Re-review is owed before any of this
travels: the corrections were made by the author of the errors.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 02:14:19 +02:00
> **Verdict: not approvable as submitted. All thirteen are now closed** —
> see the response under each. **Re-review is owed** before any of this
> travels: the corrections were made by the author of the errors.
>
> **Original verdict:** Thirteen challenges, five
CB-REV-0001: the adversarial review, and it was not approvable
Thirteen challenges, five FATAL, all five conceded. Nothing had reached
ground-game, which is the only reason this is a correction and not a
retraction.
The worst: `Reactive` was not "greedy with one preference changed". It
differed in five, including SpendFreedom — ranked 95 unconditionally
against greedy's `95 if gated else 0` — so the seat burned its Freedom
token in round one of every game. A second change to the exact mechanism
under study, and every number in CB-EV-0031 was measuring it. The pass
claimed ADR-0018's one-varying-parameter discipline in its own workplan
while violating it. GreedyPolicy::rank is now public and the policy
delegates, overriding one match arm, so the control is structurally true.
Withdrawn entirely: "H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker". Disabling
H1-B under the corrected policy changes the arm count by exactly zero.
The pass hedged the wrong variable — it disclaimed "the number 2" and
defended "the direction", and the direction is what failed. The
supporting inference was invalid anyway: final Stress cannot show who
armed, because DarvoEnded resets the stage and REVERSE gives its owner -2.
Corrected: criterion 1 was failed on the greedy column while the pass's
own printed table showed 31-1000 arms in the other columns — the
selective-column move, in the file that names it. "Peak Stress was 1" was
a maximum over StressSet payloads, not held state (true: 2); the baseline
game count was 1,600 not 3,200; and "a reckless policy plays identically
to a careful one" is refuted by this repo's own rank-95 policy.
Inert controls replaced, each verified red against the reviewer's own
mutation: the baseline hash test compared two identically-constructed
states (serde(skip) on variant left 57/57 green); the `unchanged:` test
checked 3 of 7 entries and passed with SOLVE made illegal; H1-A's ordering
and H1-B's OU-cancel path had no test at all.
edition-check now covers catalog.yaml and rules_delta.yaml, whose digests
CB-WP-0038 claimed and never recorded — the review found it and reported
it unverified rather than absent, which was the right call.
Still open: H1-B on the DARVO extra-Attack path is untested, regulation.rs
still skips setup failures silently, and round-5 arms are counted though
they can never act.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 02:02:35 +02:00
> rated FATAL. **Every FATAL is conceded.** Nothing from either evidence
> file had reached `ground-game`, which is the only reason this is a
> correction rather than a retraction.
The reviewer reproduced every number, re-derived on **three** samples
(seeds 0..200, 1000..1200, 5000..5500) and ran **14 kernel mutations** .
---
## The five that were fatal
### 1. `Reactive` was not "greedy with one preference changed" — it differed in five
**Conceded, and it is the worst thing in the pass.** The policy re-typed
an abridged copy of greedy's ranking and changed one line *of the copy* ,
under a comment reading `// THE ONE LINE` . It also differed in
`SpendFreedom` (95 unconditional against greedy's `95 if gated else 0` ),
`Solve` on a claimed Problem, `ChooseGroundMode` and `RespondToSupport` .
**The `SpendFreedom` difference is a second change to the exact mechanism
under study**: the seat burned its Freedom token in round one of every
game, ungated. Measured by the reviewer: 1200 spends against greedy's 0.
**This pass claimed ADR-0018's one-varying-parameter discipline in its own
workplan while violating it.** That is worse than not claiming it.
**Fixed structurally rather than by testing:** `GreedyPolicy::rank` is now
`pub` , and `Reactive` delegates to it and overrides a single match arm. A
caller that delegates cannot drift. The reviewer's `StrictReactive`
numbers reproduce exactly.
### 2. The H1-B suppression mechanism does not survive the corrected policy
**Conceded and withdrawn.** The reviewer disabled H1-B and re-ran:
`darvo` is **identical in every cell** . The effect CB-EV-0031 §3 attributed
to "H1-B's arithmetic" was an interaction with challenge 1's bugs.
**The hedge was on the wrong variable.** §3 disclaimed *"the number 2"*
and defended *"the direction"* . The direction is what failed.
### 3. `[5,5,4,4,4,4]` does not show that two seats armed
**Conceded.** `DarvoEnded` resets the stage and REVERSE gives its owner
− **six**
seats arming behind the same signature. A terminal snapshot was used to
prove a path property.
### 4. Criterion 1 was failed on the greedy column alone
**Conceded.** CB-EV-0030 rendered *"DARVO arm rate still 0"* as a flat
failure while **its own printed table** showed 31–
the rank-75 and rank-95 columns. **The selective-column move, in the file
that names selective reporting as the thing to avoid.** Restated per
column.
### 5. "Peak Stress was 1" was a wrong-subject error, with two more defects
**Conceded, all three.** `peak` maximised over `StressSet` event
*payloads*; starting Stress is written by `setup` and never by an event,
so a table sitting at 2 reported 1. True peak held: **2** . The baseline
game count was **1,600** , not 3,200. And the generalisation — *"a reckless
policy plays identically to a careful one"* — is refuted by this repo's
own rank-95 policy, which under **baseline** drives Stress to 5.
**What survives is narrower and is now stated that way**: under the two
policies measured, neither of which selects ATTACK under baseline, no
Stress is ever added. ATTACK is the sole inbound pressure.
---
## The serious ones
| # | challenge | outcome |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | `baseline_is_bit_for_bit_what_it_was` compared two identically-constructed states — inert against its own threat; `#[serde(skip)]` on `variant` left 57/57 green | **conceded.** Replaced by `the_variant_reaches_the_hash_and_baseline_is_not_a_change` , which asserts baseline and H1 hash **differently** . The reviewer's M6 now goes red |
| 7 | the `unchanged:` test checked **3 of 7** entries; making SOLVE illegal under H1 left it green | **conceded.** Now compares `legal_commands` per seat (catches M9), checks relation slots at the **boundary** rather than on an empty seat, and asserts the DARVO arm is at 5 (catches M7). Both verified red |
| 8 | "criteria met" rests on a forced move — `reactive` ranks ATTACK at 10 and picks it only when the gate leaves nothing else | **conceded as a limitation, recorded, not fixed.** It is true that the instrument cannot show a null result once H1-A reaches Stress 4. That is a real weakness of the measurement and is now stated in CB-EV-0031 §4 |
Close the three items CB-REV-0001 left open
H1-B on the DARVO extra Attack: the delta says the extra Attack shares
the Attack resolution "so it can self-soothe too if Stress >= 4".
CB-WP-0038 asserted it because the code shares resolve_attack; nothing
tested it, and CB-EV-0031's withdrawn mechanism story ran through that
exact path. Now tested and mutation-verified.
Round-5 pressure did not reach the score, and this was a real defect
rather than a reporting one. end_round_events scored from `self` while
H1-A's pressure went into `work`, and score() reads Stress for the GR-E03
and GR-E04 tiebreaks — so the final round's pressure was invisible to the
two modes CB-EV-0030 reports on. Fixed. The test uses the case that bites:
uniform pressure preserves an ordering, so it takes the clamp at 5 to
collapse a gap and change who wins.
Inert arms reported separately: a DARVO arm at the End of Round 5 can
never advance a stage, and criterion 1 is about DARVO mattering. 29 of 363
at 2p, none above — matching the reviewer's independent figure, so
criterion 1 stands as met.
That fix produced one more wrong-subject error, caught before reporting:
the first inert-arm metric tested `g.rounds >= 5`, a property of the GAME
rather than the EVENT, so it marked every arm in every completed game
inert and briefly read as "criterion 1 fails after all". An arm is inert
when no RoundEnded follows it.
regulation.rs no longer skips setup failures silently: they are counted,
and a short cell fails an assertion rather than printing a number a reader
has to notice — which is the credit CB-EV-0030 §3 took and half earned.
All thirteen challenges closed. Re-review is owed before any of this
travels: the corrections were made by the author of the errors.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 02:14:19 +02:00
| 9 | three claimed properties had no failing test: H1-A's ordering, H1-B on the DARVO extra Attack, H1-B on an OU-cancelled Attack | **all three fixed and mutation-verified** : `h1a_pressure_arms_darvo_in_the_same_round_end` , `h1b_does_not_soothe_an_ou_cancelled_attack` , `h1b_soothes_the_darvo_stage_attack_too` |
CB-REV-0001: the adversarial review, and it was not approvable
Thirteen challenges, five FATAL, all five conceded. Nothing had reached
ground-game, which is the only reason this is a correction and not a
retraction.
The worst: `Reactive` was not "greedy with one preference changed". It
differed in five, including SpendFreedom — ranked 95 unconditionally
against greedy's `95 if gated else 0` — so the seat burned its Freedom
token in round one of every game. A second change to the exact mechanism
under study, and every number in CB-EV-0031 was measuring it. The pass
claimed ADR-0018's one-varying-parameter discipline in its own workplan
while violating it. GreedyPolicy::rank is now public and the policy
delegates, overriding one match arm, so the control is structurally true.
Withdrawn entirely: "H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker". Disabling
H1-B under the corrected policy changes the arm count by exactly zero.
The pass hedged the wrong variable — it disclaimed "the number 2" and
defended "the direction", and the direction is what failed. The
supporting inference was invalid anyway: final Stress cannot show who
armed, because DarvoEnded resets the stage and REVERSE gives its owner -2.
Corrected: criterion 1 was failed on the greedy column while the pass's
own printed table showed 31-1000 arms in the other columns — the
selective-column move, in the file that names it. "Peak Stress was 1" was
a maximum over StressSet payloads, not held state (true: 2); the baseline
game count was 1,600 not 3,200; and "a reckless policy plays identically
to a careful one" is refuted by this repo's own rank-95 policy.
Inert controls replaced, each verified red against the reviewer's own
mutation: the baseline hash test compared two identically-constructed
states (serde(skip) on variant left 57/57 green); the `unchanged:` test
checked 3 of 7 entries and passed with SOLVE made illegal; H1-A's ordering
and H1-B's OU-cancel path had no test at all.
edition-check now covers catalog.yaml and rules_delta.yaml, whose digests
CB-WP-0038 claimed and never recorded — the review found it and reported
it unverified rather than absent, which was the right call.
Still open: H1-B on the DARVO extra-Attack path is untested, regulation.rs
still skips setup failures silently, and round-5 arms are counted though
they can never act.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 02:02:35 +02:00
## The rest
- **10 — H1-B's `after_target_and_relation_effects` ordering is vacuous
here.** Conceded: nothing between the two positions touches the
attacker's Stress, so the clause cannot be checked in this kernel. The
honest statement replaces the claim that it was got right.
Close the three items CB-REV-0001 left open
H1-B on the DARVO extra Attack: the delta says the extra Attack shares
the Attack resolution "so it can self-soothe too if Stress >= 4".
CB-WP-0038 asserted it because the code shares resolve_attack; nothing
tested it, and CB-EV-0031's withdrawn mechanism story ran through that
exact path. Now tested and mutation-verified.
Round-5 pressure did not reach the score, and this was a real defect
rather than a reporting one. end_round_events scored from `self` while
H1-A's pressure went into `work`, and score() reads Stress for the GR-E03
and GR-E04 tiebreaks — so the final round's pressure was invisible to the
two modes CB-EV-0030 reports on. Fixed. The test uses the case that bites:
uniform pressure preserves an ordering, so it takes the clamp at 5 to
collapse a gap and change who wins.
Inert arms reported separately: a DARVO arm at the End of Round 5 can
never advance a stage, and criterion 1 is about DARVO mattering. 29 of 363
at 2p, none above — matching the reviewer's independent figure, so
criterion 1 stands as met.
That fix produced one more wrong-subject error, caught before reporting:
the first inert-arm metric tested `g.rounds >= 5`, a property of the GAME
rather than the EVENT, so it marked every arm in every completed game
inert and briefly read as "criterion 1 fails after all". An arm is inert
when no RoundEnded follows it.
regulation.rs no longer skips setup failures silently: they are counted,
and a short cell fails an assertion rather than printing a number a reader
has to notice — which is the credit CB-EV-0030 §3 took and half earned.
All thirteen challenges closed. Re-review is owed before any of this
travels: the corrections were made by the author of the errors.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 02:14:19 +02:00
- **11 — `regulation.rs` still skips setup failures silently.** Conceded
and **fixed** : counted, and a short cell now fails an assertion rather
than printing a number a reader must notice.
CB-REV-0002: round 2, and the corrections were not approvable either
Three FATAL, five SERIOUS. The substance of round 1's corrections held —
Reactive is genuinely one arm different, the five replacement controls are
non-inert, the inert metric is right, the numbers reproduce. What failed
were the CLAIMS about them, and two defects the corrections introduced.
FATAL 1: the fix for round 1's #11 did not fix it. The assertion was
`games + setup_fails == 200`, and a refused setup increments setup_fails
while skipping games — so the sum is invariant under exactly the failure
it claimed to catch. Injecting setup failures gave exit 0 over 196-game
columns. Now asserts games == GAMES, verified to exit 101.
FATAL 2: the correction to the selective-column FATAL was itself
selective. "81-1000 per cell, baseline AND H1" and "31-1000" twelve lines
apart, both taken from the baseline row; under H1 rank-75 arms are
59/0/0/0. Every cell is now printed rather than summarised, and the
corrected verdict is the opposite of the one it replaced: under rank-75,
H1 REDUCES DARVO arms to zero at 3p and above.
FATAL 3: "DARVO arms 2 per seat per game" is 1 per seat per game, exactly,
at every band.
SERIOUS: the tiebreak oracle asserted only that the winner set CHANGED, so
reversing the tiebreak left it green; the #13 defect's impact was claimed
and never measured (72,000 games: zero divergences — real in principle,
witnessed only by a constructed board); a 29-of-363 citation pointed at a
file that did not contain it (round 1's reviewer did report it, and it was
never transcribed — the record was wrong, not the number); the harnesses
were run by NO GATE, so every published figure came from a manual run of
an ungated binary, including the assertion added for #1; and edition-check's
sibling handling — added by the last correction — was self-certifying,
crashed instead of failing, and counted Markdown lines as coverage. Now
discovered on disk, and it found a real gap on its first run: Rules_Text.csv
vendored with no digest.
Also: "peak Stress held" was dead code kept quiet by `let _ = held;` — the
numbers were right by coincidence.
make panels is now a registered gate. Round 3 is owed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 09:44:00 +02:00
- **13 — round-5 arms, and scoring from `self` .** *(Round 1's reviewer
reported the arm figure as **29 of 363 at 2p, 8%** , under its
`StrictReactive` . That number was omitted when this file was written and
later cited to it — see CB-REV-0002 #6 . Recorded here now.)* Both **fixed** , and the
Close the three items CB-REV-0001 left open
H1-B on the DARVO extra Attack: the delta says the extra Attack shares
the Attack resolution "so it can self-soothe too if Stress >= 4".
CB-WP-0038 asserted it because the code shares resolve_attack; nothing
tested it, and CB-EV-0031's withdrawn mechanism story ran through that
exact path. Now tested and mutation-verified.
Round-5 pressure did not reach the score, and this was a real defect
rather than a reporting one. end_round_events scored from `self` while
H1-A's pressure went into `work`, and score() reads Stress for the GR-E03
and GR-E04 tiebreaks — so the final round's pressure was invisible to the
two modes CB-EV-0030 reports on. Fixed. The test uses the case that bites:
uniform pressure preserves an ordering, so it takes the clamp at 5 to
collapse a gap and change who wins.
Inert arms reported separately: a DARVO arm at the End of Round 5 can
never advance a stage, and criterion 1 is about DARVO mattering. 29 of 363
at 2p, none above — matching the reviewer's independent figure, so
criterion 1 stands as met.
That fix produced one more wrong-subject error, caught before reporting:
the first inert-arm metric tested `g.rounds >= 5`, a property of the GAME
rather than the EVENT, so it marked every arm in every completed game
inert and briefly read as "criterion 1 fails after all". An arm is inert
when no RoundEnded follows it.
regulation.rs no longer skips setup failures silently: they are counted,
and a short cell fails an assertion rather than printing a number a reader
has to notice — which is the credit CB-EV-0030 §3 took and half earned.
All thirteen challenges closed. Re-review is owed before any of this
travels: the corrections were made by the author of the errors.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 02:14:19 +02:00
second was a real defect rather than a reporting one: `score` reads
Stress for the GR-E03/GR-E04 tiebreaks, so the final round's pressure
was invisible to the two modes CB-EV-0030 reports on. Inert arms are now
reported separately — **29 of 363 at 2p, none above** — which matches the
reviewer's independent figure and leaves criterion 1 met.
**Fixing it produced one more wrong-subject error** , caught before it
was reported: the first inert-arm metric tested `g.rounds >= 5` , a
property of the *game* rather than the *event* , so it marked every arm
in every completed game inert and briefly read as "criterion 1 fails
after all".
CB-REV-0001: the adversarial review, and it was not approvable
Thirteen challenges, five FATAL, all five conceded. Nothing had reached
ground-game, which is the only reason this is a correction and not a
retraction.
The worst: `Reactive` was not "greedy with one preference changed". It
differed in five, including SpendFreedom — ranked 95 unconditionally
against greedy's `95 if gated else 0` — so the seat burned its Freedom
token in round one of every game. A second change to the exact mechanism
under study, and every number in CB-EV-0031 was measuring it. The pass
claimed ADR-0018's one-varying-parameter discipline in its own workplan
while violating it. GreedyPolicy::rank is now public and the policy
delegates, overriding one match arm, so the control is structurally true.
Withdrawn entirely: "H1-B suppresses DARVO in the attacker". Disabling
H1-B under the corrected policy changes the arm count by exactly zero.
The pass hedged the wrong variable — it disclaimed "the number 2" and
defended "the direction", and the direction is what failed. The
supporting inference was invalid anyway: final Stress cannot show who
armed, because DarvoEnded resets the stage and REVERSE gives its owner -2.
Corrected: criterion 1 was failed on the greedy column while the pass's
own printed table showed 31-1000 arms in the other columns — the
selective-column move, in the file that names it. "Peak Stress was 1" was
a maximum over StressSet payloads, not held state (true: 2); the baseline
game count was 1,600 not 3,200; and "a reckless policy plays identically
to a careful one" is refuted by this repo's own rank-95 policy.
Inert controls replaced, each verified red against the reviewer's own
mutation: the baseline hash test compared two identically-constructed
states (serde(skip) on variant left 57/57 green); the `unchanged:` test
checked 3 of 7 entries and passed with SOLVE made illegal; H1-A's ordering
and H1-B's OU-cancel path had no test at all.
edition-check now covers catalog.yaml and rules_delta.yaml, whose digests
CB-WP-0038 claimed and never recorded — the review found it and reported
it unverified rather than absent, which was the right call.
Still open: H1-B on the DARVO extra-Attack path is untested, regulation.rs
still skips setup failures silently, and round-5 arms are counted though
they can never act.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-08-08 02:02:35 +02:00
- **12 — reproduction and sample robustness: no problem found.** Every
number reproduced; no conclusion was seed-specific. **The failures were
of construction and interpretation, not sampling.**
## What the reviewer could not check, and it is recorded rather than glossed
The design note itself (criteria quoted from CB-EV-0030, not read from
source); the catalog digest, which the reviewer could not find and
reported as **unverified rather than absent** ; `--variant` on the CLI;
`make cost` ; and the two non-SHARED modes under `reactive` .
**The catalog digest is a real gap.** CB-WP-0038 T01's control said *"the
catalog is vendored with a digest, like every other borrowed file"*, and
`PROVENANCE.md` records digests for the ten CSVs and **not** for
`catalog.yaml` or the H1 package. The control was claimed and not met.
---
## What this cost, and what it bought
The review found **five fatal defects in numbers that were one step from
another repository's design decision**, and four of the five were errors
of the exact class this project has been cataloguing since ADR-0018 —
correct computation, wrong subject.
**The instrument caught the instrument's author.** CB-WP-0039 was itself
written to correct CB-EV-0030, and it introduced worse errors than the
ones it fixed. **The lesson is not "review works" — it is that a pass
written to correct a previous pass inherits none of its caution.**
