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

method: cross-agent registers can flag live claims, and relaying dead claims instantiates them

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 02:40:01 +00:00
parent e6c78b9a04
commit e9e0020bad
1 changed files with 31 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

31
docs/re/METHOD.md
View File

@@ -2912,3 +2912,34 @@ just their content.** A checker with a green light over a stale corpus is report
on a snapshot, and nothing in its output says so unless it is made to. Ask of any
scan not only *what did it look at* but *how old was what it looked at, and who
owns it*.
## A cross-agent register can flag a phrase that is live and correct in the other corpus
Measured, not feared. `sylpheed-port`'s register holds **"1 of 3 streams"** as a
**dead** claim. The same words appear twice in this corpus — `HANDOFF.md:1635` and
`voice-three-streams-are-concurrent.md:72` — both reading *"the '1 of 3 streams'
warning **stands**"*. It is **live and correct here**.
⚠️ It is not a revival and not a hygiene failure. **Two corpora used the same words
for different propositions**, and no amount of care on either side prevents that. I
cannot tell from the bare phrase whether their dead claim is even the same
proposition as my live warning, and guessing would be the method-versus-subject
error in a new costume.
📌 **So a cross-agent check must be advisory, and the reason is sharper than
"noise gets skimmed."** A false positive aimed at another agent does not get
ignored — **it gets disputed**, and the dispute costs more than the check was worth.
Their first version counted six hits in my files as failures, applying their
`[refuted]` token to a corpus that marks corrections its own way; I would have
argued with it rather than fixing my pages, which is the worst of both outcomes.
## Relaying a peer's dead claims creates occurrences of them — measured
Their observation, and this corpus supplies the measurement: of **11** occurrences
of their registered claims in my files, **3 are in the single file I wrote to
report on their claims**. I produced the effect while documenting it.
📌 The cost is **per-mention**, and it now travels **between** agents rather than
accumulating inside one. Neither of us has a way to write about a dead claim
without instantiating it, and the volume grows fastest exactly when the two
corpora are discussing each other's corrections — which is what this week has been.