# Is any REFUTED claim still asserted, unmarked, in the corpus? 2026-08-30.
# instrument: tools/re-capture/check_refuted.py
#
# sylpheed-port's `check-claims` FAILS THEIR RUN when a refuted claim is quoted
# without a `[refuted]` token. Feeding it four of this session's withdrawals
# immediately flagged three still asserted unmarked -- every one inside a
# correction they had written themselves. REFUTED.md only publishes deaths; it
# does not enforce them. This is the equivalent for a prose corpus.
#
# CONTROL FIRST: a claim planted unmarked in a scratch file is detected. A clean
# run therefore means something.
#
# RESULT: 9 raw hits, ZERO real revivals. Every one is a false positive, of four
# kinds, and the kinds are the finding:
#
#   2  text explicitly DECLINING to revive -- "does **not** revive `rot_n001` is
#      on the disc". Reads as an assertion to a neighbourhood scan.
#   1  the same line reported twice (one claim listed twice in REFUTED.md).
#   4  entries in BACKLOG.md under a 2026-08-12 dated header -- an APPEND-ONLY LOG
#      recording what was believed THEN. History, not revival.
#   2  the claim quoted inside its own correction ("An earlier version of this
#      bullet said ...").
#
# 🔴 THE STRUCTURAL LIMIT, which 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.
# sylpheed-port's design avoids this by testing for a TOKEN AN AUTHOR MUST PLACE
# rather than for language. Theirs fires correctly even inside a correction --
# which is what caught their three -- while mine fires INCORRECTLY there and would
# miss a revival phrased in different words entirely.
#
# ⚠️ I STOPPED TUNING AT TWO REMAINING. Each marker phrase added moves the detector
# toward my corpus's habits of expression and away from being a test of it; tuning
# until it reads zero would be fitting the instrument to the answer. Over-reporting
# is the safe failure direction, so it is left over-reporting.
#
# ⚠️ And its reach: it matches a claim's EXACT wording. A revival in different
# words is invisible. "No verbatim revival" is not "no revival".