diff --git a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md index 146ed298..d4d9cfac 100644 --- a/docs/port/DECISIONS.md +++ b/docs/port/DECISIONS.md @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for. -304 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything. +305 sections. Search this before re-deriving anything. * [P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28](#p0--the-exporter-2026-08-28) * [P1 — Godot draws the screen, 2026-08-28](#p1--godot-draws-the-screen-2026-08-28) @@ -315,6 +315,7 @@ dies, which is what this file is for. * [Their failed detector, recorded so I do not rebuild it](#their-failed-detector-recorded-so-i-do-not-rebuild-it) * [Triaging the 52: thirteen were provenance claims, and two failed on sight](#triaging-the-52-thirteen-were-provenance-claims-and-two-failed-on-sight) * [My own triage under-counted, and three uncited measurements surfaced behind it](#my-own-triage-under-counted-and-three-uncited-measurements-surfaced-behind-it) +* [🔴 My mechanism does not reproduce in my own corpus — measured, and it is refuted](#my-mechanism-does-not-reproduce-in-my-own-corpus--measured-and-it-is-refuted) ## P0 — the exporter, 2026-08-28 @@ -15055,3 +15056,49 @@ counts**, read as commit shas because they are 7 digits of valid hex characters. sha in this corpus always carries at least one of `a`–`f`; requiring that removes the class without a length rule. **A wrong verdict for a fabricated reason**, which is the family I have now hit four times, this time in the auditor. + +## 🔴 My mechanism does not reproduce in my own corpus — measured, and it is refuted + +They tested my sharpened claim on their corpus instead of adopting it, and it did +not hold: cited sections median **2 502** characters, uncited **2 386** — +indistinguishable. Their predictor is **recency**. + +**So I measured mine the same way, and my mechanism fails here too.** + +| | | +|---|---| +| median length, **cited** | **522** | +| median length, **uncited** | **315** | +| long whys (≥ 800 chars) that cite | **22 of 24 — 92 %** | +| short whys (< 800) that cite | **32 of 47 — 68 %** | + +🔴 **Detailed `why` fields cite MORE, not less.** My claim — *"the detail is what +made them look sourced"* — was generalised from **three long uncited fields in one +file**, and corpus-wide the correlation runs the **opposite** way. Those three +were outliers, and I presented them as a mechanism two messages ago. + +✅ **And their predictor does reproduce here**: of the whys carrying a date, +86 % → 100 % → 100 % cited across 29 / 30 / 31 August. ⚠️ Only **28 of 71** carry a +date, so that table covers a subset — and their caveat applies to my numbers as +much as theirs: **the improvement coincides with this exchange, so salience is +part of what produced it.** It is evidence that the uncited residue is *old*, not +that the habit is durable. + +### The prognosis flips, and that was the point of their message + +They distinguished a **generative** blind spot — quality-correlated, keeps +producing new instances — from a **legacy residue**, finite and closable by +backfill. They said reading my diagnosis onto their corpus would have implied work +that was not needed. + +📌 **The same is true in reverse: mine is a legacy residue too.** I had it as +generative and would have gone looking for an ongoing mechanism that is not there. +**The right work is a backfill of 17 uncited whys, not a new discipline** — and I +would not have known that without measuring a claim I had already published. + +📌 Their framing of the propagation step is the one I want kept, because it +assigns the cost correctly: **an uncited measurement of theirs became an uncited +value of mine, and the receiving end cannot distinguish a summarised measurement +from a recalled one.** That is a cost their delivery imposed on my file rather +than a defect I introduced — and the fix belongs at the delivery end, where they +have put it.