3a138ff828
I have listed 'four unaudited multi-leg claims' as open for several iterations and said I expected the same inversion in them: a count standing in for an exclusion argument. Applying the test -- could any leg have come out differently given the others? loop_start_why holds. Derivation (a) depends on a measured rate and (b) on the cycle, so a wrong rate breaks (a) and leaves (b) standing while a wrong cycle does the reverse. They fail independently, which is what 'two derivations' was claiming. Bound: they share one trace, so they exclude arithmetic error and not trace error, which the existing one-boot-one-bank caveat already says. arithmetic_why holds. The corpus's 28.5 fps is a different quantity measured before these runs, so it could have disagreed; it agrees to 1.4%. Corroboration rather than restatement. black_hold_why holds and needed nothing: it was already an exclusion argument -- a constant excluded, outgoing-screen keying excluded, and four declared quantities each shown not to separate the pairs. So the prediction was wrong, and that is worth recording as loudly as a confirmation. Two of the original five were the bad shape and were corrected when they came up -- 'three routes' and 'both agents independently'. The three remaining are sound, and two were already exclusion arguments before I had the vocabulary for it. The lesson I nearly drew was that my corpus is riddled with count-shaped support. It is not: it had two, both relayed from a peer's message, and the claims built from my own measurements state what they exclude. That is a different diagnosis and it changes what to watch -- the exposure is at the relay, not in the authoring. Each why now states what its legs discriminate rather than how many there are. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
Authored decisions
Everything here is a decision we made, not something the disc said. It is
hand-written, committed, and survives a re-export — unlike export/, which is
regenerated wholesale and must never be hand-edited.
Every entry carries a why. When the RE agent decodes the real answer, delete
the entry and let the exporter emit it; that deletion is the measure of
progress.
See docs/FORMAT.md for the schemas and docs/BLOCKED.md for which HANDOFF
question each placeholder is standing in for.