The corpus recorded that some unit fields the disc leaves defaulted inherit
from a sibling: Size_Y from Size_X, FCSRange from RadarRange, DefencePoint
from AttackVesselPoint. Size_Y was marked the one to trust, on 9/9 support
across 7 independent ships, and it is restated in INDEX.md.
The premise is false. These fields are not defaulted -- they are on disc for
113-114 of 114 unit tables -- and Size_Y DIFFERS from Size_X in 90 of them.
The mechanism, cross-tabulating "legacy reader missed it" against "equal on
disc":
pair seen+differ seen+equal miss+differ miss+equal
Size_Y / Size_X 90 0 0 24
FCSRange / RadarRange 54 0 1 58
DefencePoint / AttackVesselPoint 51 0 1 61
seen+equal is 0 for all three: a value shared with a sibling is ALWAYS
invisible to the string-pool reader, because the pool stores each distinct
string once. And the reader almost never misses a value that differs. So
"the missing value equals the sibling's" was true BY CONSTRUCTION -- the rule
re-derived the very condition that made the field go missing. That is why the
support looked perfect: it could not fail on the cases it was fitted to.
The two miss+differ cells are its real wrong predictions, both named:
UN_e104_ADAN_Carrier DefencePoint is 0.2 (rule says 0.003), and
UN_e011_ADAN_Attacker_B_HF_Wayne FCSRange is 3000.0 (rule says 6000.0).
Retracted in unit-struct-runtime.md (original reasoning kept below the
correction), live-unit-definitions.md and INDEX.md. Pinned by a disc test
that asserts the seen+equal cells stay zero, so the mechanism itself is
guarded, not just the counts. Artifact: examples/sibling_rule_check.rs.
This one was found by my own check after the subagent assigned to it stalled.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01PMRJjbxLqZtsb5Vb7KunPE
49a09a9496