They ended with 'it needs a hook at withdrawal time, not a sweep'. Expressible,
because a correction here has a shape: a heading carrying WITHDRAWN / CORRECTION /
refuted. A correction section containing no registered phrase is a death argued
and never indexed. check-claims now reports them, and the first run names more
than my 'four of eight' -- the shortfall runs back through earlier work.
Reported, not asserted, deliberately: not every correction retires a claim, and
forcing rows for those would push rows in to silence the check.
Two failures while building it. The first version pasted the register rows into
its own heredoc, so every registered phrase became an unmarked quotation and
check-claims flagged its own source -- a tool violating the rule it enforces by
being written. Fixed by passing the register through the environment.
And writing up the previous catch re-introduced three unmarked quotations:
describing a refuted claim quotes it, so every correction is a new occurrence
needing the token. The cost is recursive, which the header implies but does not
say out loud.
What the hook does not do: it fires when a correction is written, so it closes the
gap between arguing and indexing, not between believing and arguing. Nothing here
would have caught me copying their 'structural' claim into my record.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
6ffd9baca9