Repository navigation
docs(research): factor ON×DO dispatch through witnessed Quack WHERE populations - #1819
Conversation
|
Important
This repository does not receive automatic reviews because it has fewer than 10 stars.
 |
|
Operator clarification incorporated into this docs-only plan (commits fef1cf2, 60eca64): Methods are typed dimensional mappings onto shared native algebra/polyfills, not independently deletable execution units. Distinct mappings to the same polyfill under different guards/source populations are normal. In Odoo, multiple valid rules converging on one business state is normal too: taxability with subordinate tax-rate rules is a many→one example; routing the shared determination to two distinct ledgers is one→many. A shared result is not necessarily a conflict; only incompatible outputs at a fully source-qualified coordinate under a declared law are conflicts. DO presence alone does not define the complete combination. The proposed 256² ON×DO + Quack WHERE factoring must preserve (1) separate mapped rule identities, (2) their lawful many→one composition with order/rounding/validity, (3) one→multiple typed destination routing, and (4) bounded 0+63 Thought-Git constructive counterfactual synthesis with protected intermediates and world isolation. Divergence is a signal, not the final objective. A candidate conditional composition is not an admitted law or a source write. Source-grounded Odoo tax/ledger harvesting and independent parity remain planned; the #44 corpus does not already prove tax/dual-ledger semantics. No code, tests or runtime added by these corrections. |
|
Review against odoo-rs The cited numbers check out. I compared them with
The 256² padding is consistent with the four 64-wide blocks that #44 needs per axis. One status is stale. The ownership table lists odoo-rs #45 as OPEN; it merged at 13:07 UTC today. This plan pairs with CFA-1 (#1814). CFA-1 defines WHEN as a typed, three-valued guard expression, "not one Boolean atom". That is the semantic premise for taking WHEN out of the bitmap and into WHERE populations, and CFA-1 does not yet cite this plan. The disables overlap the CFA falsifiers. Disables 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 test the same invariants as CFA I01/K5/A09, I03/I04, K6, A11/C10, A03/L04 and CFA-2's world isolation. The mapping is in my review on #1813. One shared table on the #44 cube fixture ( Measured inputs for steps A and B:
Generated by Claude Code |
|
I re-read the plan as of
One fact for disable 1. The #44 cube already loses part of the dimension that distinguishes these mappings. Every method whose class is not Generated by Claude Code |
Codex Review SummaryThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
…atch fold #1814 and #1819 have merged, so the plan now cites them by section from this repo instead of as open PRs by line number. That line-number row was the one citation-decay failure on c440fab: the file did not exist locally, so the local run reported UNVERIFIABLE where CI reported DECAYED. Reading both in full showed two contradictions, now fixed: - the dispatch step's two-valued `OR over w in G` fold is restricted to candidate DO presence; selection evaluates typed guards in K3 (#1814 kill test I03); - open question 3 now follows #1819: several mappings and convergence are normal; a conflict needs incompatible source-qualified results. Also corrects the quoted Ruff role names to #1814's list. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMNiyjwqFke9CfmoBgn
The plan and board entry said the merged plans do not use ON / WHEN / DO. That holds only for the three DT64 plans. ON×WHEN×DO is established in merged lance-graph research docs: the D-CFA series (docs/research/counterfactual-behavior/) and the EAW series (docs/research/epistemic-awareness/), plus #1819. All twelve files read in full; the grounding row and the non-goal line now say so. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMNiyjwqFke9CfmoBgn
…GIT reference predicates (#1831) * docs(D-DT64-6): DR64 routing, DT64 bind store, per-cell WHEN×ON×DO, OGIT reference predicates Records seven user decisions from 2026-10-28 in DECISION / SCOPE / BASIS / REVISIT WHEN form: - the three DT64 levels; - DR#3 Identity × Properties as the primary view; - WHEN×ON×DO per DR#3 cell; - DR64 = direct routing and DT64 = DTO bind store; - immutable classid → behaviour via hotplug; - global behaviour needs no classid; - OGIT read unpinned. Maps each decision onto existing code and plans with evidence states, and stages D-DT64-6-0..5: - OGIT reader reconciliation; - ogit:allowed expansion in lance-graph-ontology; - DT64 predicate registration; - consumer HotPlug access. Requests, but does not apply, an amendment to D-DT64-Q0 line 9. Docs only. No code, ABI, test, runtime or merge authorization. Board: entry, INTEGRATION_PLANS and STATUS_BOARD prepends, and the regenerated entries index. The supersession index regenerates unchanged. Co-Authored-By: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMNiyjwqFke9CfmoBgn * docs(D-DT64-6): cite in-repo sources by symbol and section, not line number The citation-decay gate failed on nine grounding rows. The cited lines were correct, but each row's citation sat next to the following row's backticked text, which the gate took as its anchor. Line numbers into moving files are what the gate exists to retire, so every in-repo citation now names a symbol or section heading instead. Also replaces the two grounding rows that rested on grep output with claims from full reads: the three merged DT64 plans, and the qr_focus / qr_register lab tests (whose actual wording is now quoted correctly). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMNiyjwqFke9CfmoBgn * docs(D-DT64-6): record D8, DR64 references identity and the register copy amortizes prefetch DR64 direct routing references existing identities and mints none. The global->local prefetch holds a copy of the register (identity references and local positions only, never values), reused by every read under one frame and rebuilt when the frame check refuses. Stated against the zero-copy law's pointer-table carve-out and Q0's accounted prefetch cost. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMNiyjwqFke9CfmoBgn * docs(D-DT64-6): ground #1814 and #1819 as merged; K3 note on the dispatch fold #1814 and #1819 have merged, so the plan now cites them by section from this repo instead of as open PRs by line number. That line-number row was the one citation-decay failure on c440fab: the file did not exist locally, so the local run reported UNVERIFIABLE where CI reported DECAYED. Reading both in full showed two contradictions, now fixed: - the dispatch step's two-valued `OR over w in G` fold is restricted to candidate DO presence; selection evaluates typed guards in K3 (#1814 kill test I03); - open question 3 now follows #1819: several mappings and convergence are normal; a conflict needs incompatible source-qualified results. Also corrects the quoted Ruff role names to #1814's list. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMNiyjwqFke9CfmoBgn * docs(D-DT64-6): ON×WHEN×DO is in merged research docs, not absent The plan and board entry said the merged plans do not use ON / WHEN / DO. That holds only for the three DT64 plans. ON×WHEN×DO is established in merged lance-graph research docs: the D-CFA series (docs/research/counterfactual-behavior/) and the EAW series (docs/research/epistemic-awareness/), plus #1819. All twelve files read in full; the grounding row and the non-goal line now say so. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMNiyjwqFke9CfmoBgn * docs(D-DT64-6): place the plan in the #1760 successor design (crai-rs CR-H0/H1) #1760's D-SAG-6 plan is unchanged since merge; its successor is the crai-rs CR-H0 / CR-H1 map (crai-rs #1, #2), which makes D-SAG-6 the motor and Ruff + DT64 the transmission. The plan now grounds both, places the per-cell ON×WHEN×DO registry as that transmission's behaviour binding, ties D5/D8 to D-SAG-6 F06, F07 and F11, and requires behaviour registrations to reference ordered effects: a DO set or deduplicated SPO bag cannot distinguish two effect orders. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMNiyjwqFke9CfmoBgn * docs(D-DT64-6): ground odoo-rs #46 as the Odoo intake to the per-cell registry Searched odoo-rs, OGAR, crai-rs, lance-graph and ndarray for the #1760 lineage. Besides crai-rs CR-H0/H1, odoo-rs #46 (Odoo Codegraph harvest schema, docs) is the one successor; OGAR and ndarray have none. Read #46's doc and schema in full. Its `dt64_candidates` array (source nodes -> existing algebra_ref, no seat mint) is the registry's Odoo intake; every emitted_by MethodId is kept; effective behaviour needs a registry_snapshot in the frame. Open question 2 (inheritance before the cell lookup) is narrowed by #46's _inherit / _inherits rules. Notes that #46's doc lists dt64_candidates as a graph layer while its schema does not. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMNiyjwqFke9CfmoBgn * D-DT64-6: address review on #1831 (OGIT readers, D-DT64-6-1a, Q0 contract) - The two OGIT readers see disjoint verb sets: ttl_parse `classify` accepts the 12 rdfs:Class verbs (all WorkOrder, all ogit:from-to), OGAR `parse_verb` the 511 owl:ObjectProperty verbs, of 523. Measured over an unpinned OGIT clone (b5731a8, receipt only). - Add D-DT64-6-1a: classify every verb file in both readers first. - D-DT64-6-2 builds (src, verb, dst) from the entity ogit:allowed blocks (960 files, none in verbs/) plus the 12 from-to verbs, reads OGAR's OgitTables::Allowed instead of adding a second parser, and puts the standing parity test beside tests/ontology_cache.rs. - 518 / 2,756 is OGAR #363's reader output (eaw-5), not OGIT drift. - crai-rs CR-H0/H1 is a sidecar consumer of #1760, not its successor; its open-PR list is dated 2026-10-27. - Ruff has no Rust frontend; role names checked in ruff role.rs. - Cite D-DT64-Q0 by section, not line 9; INTEGRATION_PLANS says eight decisions. Docs only. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMNiyjwqFke9CfmoBgn * D-DT64-6: align STATUS_BOARD rows with the revised plan Add the D-DT64-6-1a row and restate D-DT64-6-2 as reading OGAR OgitTables::Allowed rather than a second expansion in lance-graph-ontology, matching plan §5 after the #1831 review. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMPWTwovjYJEUMuGPb4 --------- Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
… §10 corrections - D-DT64-6-2 now states its precondition: it is a second ogit:allowed parser, which merged #1831 rules out unless the owner picks §6 option B and amends that guard. The stage is scoped to option B. - Item 5 resolves references across the whole checkout in a second pass, not per file. - §10 records corrections to the merged parent plan from the D-CFA, EAW and #1819 research docs, each citing the section it corrects. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01XAqKMPWTwovjYJEUMuGPb4
Purpose
Docs-only, additive architecture crosswalk and preregistered falsifiers for factoring #44's logical ON×WHEN×DO into a proposed 256×256 ON×DO bitmap and source-witnessed Quack WHERE/optional source-owned watch repair. No code, tests, ABI, runtime, new registry or implementation authorization.
Checked existing ownership
Scope and checkpoints
Plan file:
docs/research/on-do-watched-where-factored-dispatch-plan-20261027.mdValidation: Documentation proposal only, no benchmark/test runs claimed. Separate owner approval needed for any test-only code. EXO-50 communication is a new append-only comment, not a board status mutation.