sylpheed-port promoted my unverified "EXTRAS is stuck at n=1, a structural limit"
out of a message into DECISIONS.md as an established fact, while holding the file
that refuted it -- their own authored/flow.json, recording ptbtn11 ->
GP_MISSION_SELECT. Their corollary is sharper than my original entry: distrust
"structural" and "impossible" hardest when SOMEONE ELSE writes them, because they
arrive without the doubt the author would have had.
Swept this side for the same shape. It is clean: port-supplied figures are
attributed in the text ("port reports 866 keyframes ... 0 untimed"), the
ui_layout.rs comment on the unreachable fallback cites MY OWN measurement of 0
untimed of 24 811 across 965 builds rather than their 866, and their quantisation
floor of 0.41 appears in no document of mine at all.
Reach stated: this tests attribution WORDING and the port-supplied figures I could
enumerate, not every reliance. A negative from a naive check is not proof of
absence, and saying so is the point of recording it.
What protected it was a habit rather than vigilance -- writing the source into the
sentence. That is now the third instance of one remedy: state what the number is a
number of; write the index space into the token (e10 rather than "build 10"); write
the source into the claim. Put the qualifier in the text, never in the reader's
memory.
Also fixes the half-guard the port called out. The effective-config block reported
`arming on` from screen_id.py, which cannot separate the main menu from EXTRAS --
so it announced "menu" while the run was armed on EXTRAS, a field the guard could
not resolve for exactly the two screens in question. It now prints both that value
AND the discriminator with its margin, so the ambiguity is visible rather than
hidden. NOT yet verified in a run -- per the port's own --no-hold lesson, parsed
and edited is not working.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Wuu56cE8vJGTBtn1ppsk8v
040b2a7855