The historical-control rule, stated where the workflows live - #2782
Merged
Conversation
…ows live column-forensics already takes two builds because an aggregate at HEAD says nothing about what a change did. The same rule applies to a DETECTOR and is easier to miss: `tri abandoned list` at HEAD named one site, a result equally consistent with "works" and "matches nothing". And a partial hit rate -- two of four -- is the instrument's specification. A detector adjusted until it hits its own motivating examples has stopped being evidence. Refs #2754 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Contributor
|
📓 NotebookLM Notebook linked to this PR
This notebook contains session context, decisions, and artifacts for this work. |
Contributor
PR DashboardGenerated at: 2026-08-29 05:25:08 UTC
Summary
Seal Status
|
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Refs #2754
column-forensicsalready takes two per-item dumps from two builds, because an aggregate at HEAD says nothing about what a change did. The same rule applies to a detector, and it is easier to miss.tri abandoned list(#2781) was written to find the pattern behind four parser defects. Run at HEAD it named one site — a result equally consistent with works and with matches nothing, because the four defects it was built for are fixed.There it names four, including the rung-5 defect verbatim.
And when it finds only some of them — two of four, here — that number is the instrument's specification, not a bug to tune away. A detector adjusted until it hits its own motivating examples has stopped being evidence.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code