fabi/Sylpheed
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 9 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

method: the register never scanned code, and their limit on it is not closed

Browse Source 
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
This commit is contained in:
sylph-decoder
2026-08-31 03:22:55 +00:00
parent dda1bc183b
commit 118c43a750
1 changed files with 25 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

25
docs/re/METHOD.md
View File

@@ -3071,3 +3071,28 @@ full of factual claims about the game — calibrations, thresholds, what a scree
does — and **nothing verifies any of it**. A `why` in an authored file at least has
a convention demanding a citation. A docstring has nothing, is read as authoritative
by the next reader, and travels with the code.
## The register never scanned code — and code is where a retraction fails to land
`sylpheed-port` found **three live stale claims in their own source**, each already
retracted in their log days earlier, and named the rule: *a correction that does not
reach the artifact a consumer reads has not been made*. A code comment is the worst
case, because **it sits beside the thing it describes**.
🔴 **`check_refuted.py` scanned `docs/` only.** Running it over `tools/` and
`crates/` for the first time found one here too: `jp_title_session.sh` justified its
own existence with *"a free-running clock lands somewhere else on a fresh boot"* —
a claim **I had refuted the day before**, when the plate-pulse gate turned out to
phase-lock the shutter to 1.6 % of the sweep traverse. The script's rationale rested
on a premise I had personally killed.
✅ Fixed, and the register now scans code behind `--code`. **Controlled three ways**,
and the middle one is the proof the gap was real: a planted revival in code exits 1
with `--code`, exits **0 without it**, and 0 again once removed.
⚠️ **Their limit is more important than the fix, and it is not closed.** A register
holds only what has *already been retracted*, so it catches **propagation failures,
not wrong numbers**. My own worst instance — `ring_row.py`'s calibration, wrong
because it was fitted against the wrong reference rows — would still not be caught,
because nothing had retracted it: **nobody knew it was wrong.** This closes the
class found in their tree and not the one found in mine.