Their finding: eight claims died this session and none reached REFUTED.md, the
file their brief says to grep before proposing anything. The pages are where a
refutation is argued; the index is where it is found.
Mine is the same gap and worse in one respect. tools/port/check-claims is a
register that FAILS the run if a refuted claim is quoted without its [refuted]
token, and it is in check-all -- so an entry enforces rather than merely
publishes. It held 7 rows, all from earlier work, and I added none while
withdrawing about 8 claims this session.
Registered four. The checker immediately flagged three still asserted unmarked,
and every one was inside a correction I had written myself -- the headings-audit
table rows explaining the withdrawals, and the EXTRAS withdrawal block. That is
the token doing what phrasing cannot: all three read as corrections to a human and
the marker fired anyway, because it tests for a token an author places rather than
for language that sounds retracted. Marked; the register now passes.
Scope: four of roughly eight registered. Not registered -- the compactness
precondition, the half-rate defect, 'the eras render identically', and my 16/16/18
rule -- each argued in its own correction and findable by nobody. Stopped at four
because each row costs marking every existing quotation by hand.
And nothing mechanically checks that a future withdrawal reaches the register.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01N7FiFFFwbvG2uxdcEh8HyF
a0f27ec69b