897be7bfdd
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
2.2 KiB
2.2 KiB