diff --git a/docs/re/data/stale-justification-detector-failed.txt b/docs/re/data/stale-justification-detector-failed.txt new file mode 100644 index 00000000..0643dc86 --- /dev/null +++ b/docs/re/data/stale-justification-detector-failed.txt @@ -0,0 +1,45 @@ +# Can the "stale justification in a tool" class be caught by an instrument? +# 2026-08-31. ❌ MY ATTEMPT FAILED. Recorded as a negative, not as agreement. +# +# THE CLASS: sylpheed-port has now found FOUR retractions that never reached their +# own source, and I found one -- jp_title_session.sh justifying its existence with +# "a free-running clock lands somewhere else on a fresh boot", which I had refuted +# myself the day before. Their sharpest point is that a stale JUSTIFICATION is +# worse than a stale NUMBER: it degrades the argument it supports, so the +# reasoning beneath it reads as broken. +# +# A register cannot catch the general case -- it holds only claims already +# RETRACTED, so it catches recurrence, not error. Both agents said so. I tried to +# build something that does not need the claim retracted. +# +# ATTEMPT 1: flag a tool whose cited docs/ page is NEWER than the tool. +# -> 126 candidates. Useless: pages are appended to constantly for unrelated +# reasons, so "newer" carries no signal at all. +# +# ATTEMPT 2 (narrowed, and the narrowing was checked rather than assumed): flag a +# tool whose cited page later received a commit whose SUBJECT marks a correction +# (correct / withdraw / retract / refute / supersede / stale / wrong). +# -> 43 candidates. Better signal, still too many to hand-audit. +# +# ❌ SAMPLED THREE, ALL FALSE POSITIVES: +# ob_flag.py cites mission-objective-counter.md for "the counter's ADDRESS"; +# the correction refuted a PREDICTION about page offset 0x9668, +# which the tool never asserts. +# ssb_watch.py cites script-runtime-probe.md; the correction concerns a polled +# phase-1 condition the docstring does not mention. +# timer_probe.py cites mission-arrival-watch.md; its docstring is about scanning +# for a linearly-increasing counter, untouched by the correction. +# +# => THE PROXY FAILS FOR A STRUCTURAL REASON: a tool cites a page for ONE fact, +# and the page gets corrected about ANOTHER. Co-citation is not co-reference. +# Publishing 43 candidates with an unmeasured and apparently low true-positive +# rate would be the audit-that-invents-defects failure, so it is not published. +# +# ⚠️ REACH: 3 of 43 sampled. The rate is not established, only shown to be low +# enough that the report is not worth reading. A better instrument might exist; I +# do not have one, and two attempts failed in different ways. +# +# 📌 WHAT ACTUALLY FOUND THE FIVE REAL INSTANCES: a person reading a sentence for +# its own sake -- them reading mine, me reading theirs, each of us reading our own +# source after being prompted. The registers now catch RECURRENCES of what has +# been retracted. That is worth having and is not the same thing.