feat(spec): a source claim that fails measurement routes like a conflict - #955
Open
leeovery wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
feat(spec): a source claim that fails measurement routes like a conflict#955leeovery wants to merge 1 commit into
leeovery wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
The incoherence trigger named only source-vs-source disagreement, so a discussion that was internally coherent but empirically wrong extracted cleanly — observed on a real feature where seven false tree claims rode into the spec and the headline one was 'corrected' in the spec alone, leaving the completed discussion asserting it on disk. The trigger now names disagreement with the codebase the sources describe; a new first-match classify branch re-runs the measurement, lands a value-only correction in the owning document with a one-line notify, and stops (overriding auto) when the corrected value undermines a conclusion. Construction principles gain the measure-before-extract duty, with the command and result travelling into the spec. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This was referenced Aug 19, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Why
Idea 40, observed live:
resolve-source-incoherence.mdtriggers only on source-vs-source disagreement, so a single internally-coherent discussion carrying seven false claims about the tree extracted cleanly — and the one falsehood construction did catch was patched in the spec alone as a "validated correction", leaving the completed discussion asserting it on disk.What
spec-construction.md§A and §B, the reference's attribution): source material disagreeing with the codebase or toolchain it describes routes exactly like a conflict — never patched in the spec alone.resolve-source-incoherence.md: re-run the measurement before classifying (an asserted-as-verified figure is not a measurement); value-only mismatch whose citing conclusions survive → lands in the owning document via §C with a one-line notify, no gate; a mismatch that undermines a conclusion → conversational stop that overridesauto, then the existing settle/gap ladder.Trigger:line may now cite a failed measurement.specification-principles.md): load-bearing tree claims are verified before extraction and extracted with their command and result.Stacks on #954. Part 2 of the idea-40 stack.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code