coulomb/gate-house
4
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Strengthen A7 to two tiers on approval-engine's proposal

Browse source 
The summary-for-body pattern reached six instances in four repositories
in one week. approval-engine escalated it with a concrete split: the half
that is mechanically checkable and the half that is doctrine.

§11 gains an example-validates-against-schema check, with the clause that
matters most — where a field is optional but load-bearing, examples must
cover both its presence and its absence. That clause is instance six:
approval-engine's own claim examples omitted pdp_digest and contradicted
its schema, found while implementing GH-DEC-2026-008, by the repository
making the argument. An example set that silently omits an optional field
teaches every reader the field does not exist.

§12 gains the convention half, which no test can cover: derivatives
marked with source and derivation version, and dated review records
marked as status-as-of-date rather than current state.

The tally is recorded in full because it is the argument. Four of six
were self-reported and one was committed by the proposer, so the case is
that the publishing shape makes the error the default — not that four
repositories were careless. A control depending on repositories
volunteering corrections is not a control.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01WtJBr77gMFLrN93iEevqQJ

Assistant: claude-code
Assistant-Model: opus
Assistant-Process: 425128@bnt-lap001
Assistant-Session: f5944d8b-dac4-4e1a-87eb-8b3d8f314a63
This commit is contained in:
tegwick 2026-09-06 14:21:29 +02:00
parent 4d8b0f6775
commit 3b828586fc
2 changed files with 83 additions and 44 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

13
workplans/GH-WP-0003-statute-v08-amendment-set.md
View file

@ -180,9 +180,16 @@ the observation that at four instances it is a property of how the estate publis
rather than four separate lapses: authoritative bodies with derived summaries beside
them and no staleness marker on the derivatives.
Drafted as A7 — a §11 marking obligation on the publisher and a §12 paragraph on the
consumer. The limit is stated in the draft: marking makes staleness visible, it does
not detect a marked derivative that is still wrong.
Now six instances in four repositories, and A7 is drafted in two tiers on
`approval-engine`'s proposal: a §11 mechanical check (published examples validate
against the schema they exemplify, and cover both shapes of an optional load-bearing
field) and a §12 convention (derivatives marked with source and derivation version;
dated review records marked as status-as-of-date). Four of the six were self-reported
and one was committed by the repository arguing for the rule, which is the argument
that the publishing shape makes the error the default rather than that four
repositories were careless. The limit is stated in the draft: the mechanical half
catches example drift, the convention half makes prose staleness visible without
detecting it.
```task
id: GH-WP-0003-T09