Skip to content

maps(S395): the wrap-6c tail — the mapper was still writing when the wrap committed - #825

Merged
bryanmaclee merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
maps/s395-tail
Sep 3, 2026
Merged

maps(S395): the wrap-6c tail — the mapper was still writing when the wrap committed#825
bryanmaclee merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
maps/s395-tail

Conversation

@bryanmaclee

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Maps-only. The wrap-6c refresh landed 12 map files in #824; the project-mapper was still writing and produced five more after the amend — including non-compliance.report.md, which is the half carrying the findings rather than the routing.

Landed by file copy onto merged main, not git stash: refs/stash is shared across every worktree and the retained ~-arc worktree is still live, so a stash here could be popped into it (the S385 race, which happened in both directions in one session).

Process note for the next wrap: a non-isolated map generator can outlive the commit that stages its output. Wait for the map delta to settle — same content hash twice — before committing 6c, rather than committing on the first quiet moment.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_019eHiNS6uvnGPFz55fzinNJ

…wrap committed

The wrap-6c refresh landed 12 map files in #824; the project-mapper was still writing and
produced five more after the amend — including the non-compliance report, which is the
half that carries the findings rather than the routing.

Landed by FILE COPY onto merged main, not `git stash`: `refs/stash` is shared across every
worktree and the retained `~`-arc worktree is still live, so a stash here could be popped
into it (the S385 race, both directions in one session).

⚑ Process note for the next wrap: a non-isolated map generator can outlive the commit that
stages its output. Wait for the map delta to SETTLE — same content hash twice — before
committing 6c, rather than committing on the first quiet moment.
@bryanmaclee
bryanmaclee merged commit ce3843b into main Sep 3, 2026
2 of 3 checks passed
bryanmaclee added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 3, 2026
… them mine (#826)

The wrap-6c refresh completed after #824/#825 landed partial writes. This is the settled
output, plus the `master-list.md` @generated:recent-sessions regen the wrap commit staled
(state.ts --check was FAILING on it; now PASS).

⚑ FOUR PREMISES FAILED ON MEASUREMENT, AND THE FIRST WAS IN MY OWN BRIEF.

1. I briefed "compiler/tests/commands/ runs in NO blocking job on any platform." WRONG on
   the pre-push clause: `.git/hooks/pre-push:96` DOES name it, in a suite its own comment
   calls blocking. The CONCLUSION survives by a different mechanism — `RUN_SUITE` is 1 only
   on a release-tag push or a ref-diff failure, so a normal code push skips it entirely, and
   the source-controlled hook (`scripts/git-hooks/pre-push:87`) never names it at all. The
   map states the MECHANISM now, not my slogan. I had repeated the slogan in three PR bodies
   and a hand-off; it was right about the outcome and wrong about why.

2. `test.map.md` carried FOUR count cells wrong at their own watermark — Unit 909→925,
   Integration 213→216, Browser 98→102, Commands 14→17 — identical at `ad7b65dc`, with zero
   test files added in the window. The prior pass applied DELTAS to a base it never
   re-measured, so a correct total sat on four wrong components. Its Integration gate column
   was also wrong: integration blocks a COMMIT, not a merge.

3. `auth.map.md`'s anchor was DELETED, not moved — `:1046-1048` exists in no form. A
   line-drift repair would have produced a confidently wrong map.

4. The `gate` "14 steps" figure was ambiguous (12 `- name:` + 2 `- uses:`); stated both ways.

⚑ ALL THREE FACTUAL ERRORS FOUND THIS PASS WERE IN THE MAP SET, NOT IN THE DOCS IT AUDITS.

MAPPED: #818 — invariant 82's `collect.ts` prohibition RETIRED (that arc closed both halves
together), and the ORDER it protected promoted to invariant 86, including the third
`collectWorkerBodyFunctionIds` walk whose omission would have false-fired E-ROUTE-004's
sibling. #822 (domain §62.2) and #823 (domain §52.13, auth row 3, dev.js structure entry).
The two routing facts I asked for are invariants 87 and 88.

STAMP: `8e278c73`, deliberately NOT the branch tip. Reaching a literal `maps: current` would
require stamping an unpushed branch SHA — the S326/S328/S331 orphaned-stamp hazard, since
branch tips squash-merge under a different SHA. The mapper stamped the furthest commit
satisfying all three MAP-STAMP checks (== origin/main, == merge-base, source diff EMPTY,
is-ancestor exit 0). Headers now state the two-SHA split explicitly: source delta walked is
`ad7b65dc..2d8dd8c`; watermark is `8e278c73`.

NON-COMPLIANCE, standing items re-verified and both STILL LIVE — with a wording correction
worth more than the finding: N12's "never in ANY map" is no longer true (`structure.map.md:196`
names `docs/audits/`), so the accurate claim is "NAMED, never SCANNED". Its "two self-declare
superseded" figure holds, but a `grep -li superseded` returns 9 and over-counts 4.5×. N14
confirmed again: `collapseIfChains` is at `:18871`, `:18885` is `let i = 0;`, and the same
entry's OTHER citation is correct — which is what makes the wrong one read as trustworthy.

NEW, needs a human: `docs/articles/` sits outside EVERY compile gate. `snippet-gate.js`'s
SNIPPET_CORPUS covers only tutorial/readme/website and gates `.scrml` FILES, not fenced
blocks — so the 6 `scrml` blocks in the enum article at publish state have nothing telling
anyone if they stop compiling.
bryanmaclee added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 3, 2026
…ral recursion, closed (#827)

Markers for #824 (the wrap), #825 (the map tail), #826 (the mapper's final pass).

⚑ The #541 recursion in its purest form: a floor that binds MERGED PRs can never read zero
at the moment a floor-recording PR merges, so each wrap-adjacent landing owes the next one.
Three this session were wrap/maps continuity — all correctly carve-out by file surface, and
#826's note is the one worth reading, because its CONTENT is four corrected premises and the
first is a claim of mine that I had already repeated in three PR bodies and a hand-off.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant