A real revival planted inside a paragraph that merely discussed corrections was
missed: the words 'refuted' and 'withdrawn' in the surrounding prose vouched for it.
Measured reach: 100 % of registered-claim mentions in the corpus are suppressed by
marker language, so the reported 0 was 0 regardless of whether any was live, and I
had been reading it as a pass.
sylpheed-port's token-based hook has the opposite bias -- it over-reports on
well-written corrections, which is the safe direction. Under-reporting is disguised
as success.
Fixed by making the suppression visible rather than removing it: suppressed mentions
are counted and listed with --show-marked as not verified, only vouched for.
Controlled -- the planted revival moves the suppressed count 8 -> 9 and appears in
the listing.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
Three refutations written as prose under ### headings never entered the register:
check_refuted.py parses * "claim" lines, so the count stayed at 188. Registered
them properly (188 -> 192). A register that parses one syntax silently ignores
every other, and it is invisible from the author's side -- ask the register what it
holds, do not re-read what you wrote.
Both standing false positives were bullets under a header that retracts the whole
list, with no marker in the +-4-line window: scope marks them, not proximity. The
scan now includes the nearest preceding header and matches markers
case-insensitively ('An earlier version' was missed by the marker 'an earlier
version'). Controlled by planting a real revival and confirming it is still caught;
register now runs clean at 0.
Also records sylpheed-port's diagnosis of the phase-lock fallout: a number can be
inapplicable rather than wrong, and a tension built on one is manufactured. Plus
their point that some claims are not registrable in a substring register at all.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
sylpheed-port's check-claims fails their run when a refuted claim is quoted
without an explicit token, and feeding it four withdrawals flagged three still
asserted unmarked -- each inside a correction they had written. REFUTED.md
publishes deaths without enforcing them, which is the gap I named last iteration
and did not close.
check_refuted.py is the prose equivalent: for each quoted claim in REFUTED.md it
searches docs/ for that text and reports occurrences whose neighbourhood carries
no refutation marker. Controlled first -- a claim planted unmarked in a scratch
file is detected, so a clean run means something.
9 raw hits, ZERO real revivals. All false positives, and the kinds are the
finding: 2 were text explicitly DECLINING to revive a claim; 1 a duplicate report;
4 were BACKLOG.md entries under a 2026-08-12 header, an append-only log recording
what was believed then; 2 were the claim quoted inside its own correction.
The structural limit is worth more than the clean result. A neighbourhood-language
detector cannot separate "asserted now" from "recorded as believed then", because
a dated log entry and a revival read identically. The port's design avoids this by
testing for a token an author must PLACE rather than for language -- theirs fires
correctly inside a correction, which is what caught their three, while mine fires
incorrectly there and would miss a revival reworded.
Stopped tuning at two remaining. Each marker phrase added fits the detector to this
corpus's habits of expression and away from being a test of them; tuning until it
reads zero would be fitting the instrument to the answer. Left over-reporting,
which is the safe direction.
Reach: it matches a claim's exact wording, so "no verbatim revival" is not "no
revival".
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
