Review round 7. Its adjudication of the round-6 dispute went the branch's way — measured
at `f394d6ce`, the sha the record actually cites, the #620-era distribution is n=167,
min 2, median 26, p90 52. Round 6 had measured `fefd11dff` (p90 57), a different tree.
The number stays as written.
BLOCKING FINDING: the 2%/25% constants and their inclusive boundaries were not pinned at
all. Mutating 0.02 -> 0.03, 0.25 -> 0.30, or either `<=` to `<` passed all eight
calibration tests. Those are not free parameters — they ARE the documented CI-red
thresholds, so a silent shift would quietly falsify the 38/718 figures in
docs.corpus-size-signal and docs/ci-cd.md (a strict cap reds after 37 long additions, a
strict floor after 717 short ones).
test_the_minority_band_BOUNDARIES_are_exactly_where_documented pins all four. It uses
100-record fixtures so k over the ceiling IS k%, and both 2/100 and 25/100 are exactly
representable and compare equal to the constants — true boundary cases, not near-misses.
Verified by mutation: all four now fail it.
PROSE
- corpus-size-signal said what stays blocking is "what routine growth cannot break",
immediately before explaining that 38 routine additions break it. Now "what no SINGLE
ordinary addition can break", which is what is actually true.
- docs/ci-cd.md said the fine claim is "never asserted"; it is never asserted AGAINST THE
LIVE CORPUS, and IS asserted on synthetic distributions the tests own. Corrected — the
distinction is the whole design.
Correction to an earlier commit message in this branch (9d2b30dc3, already pushed, so
recorded here rather than rewritten): it said the cross-check was clean on "all 183 real
records". 183 is the active keyed-record count; the cross-check scans the record WINGS —
195 files at that commit, 190 of them carrying frontmatter. The check was clean; the
figure named the wrong population.
Verification: 432 scripts/tests pass; ruff at baseline parity (47); validator exits 0 with
no drift notice; corpus at p90=60, 18/183, calibrated; new record still 60 lines.
Decisions-Edit: yes
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
timothyandClaude Opus 5
0ff9671393