Development record
2026-09-01 — The supply-regime gate refuses only a real decision field (maintainer, ruling on iss-2608311518056854). Fourteen of thirty-four realistic readings were refused for quoting the document they read, because the disposition detector fires on the bare token followed by a colon or equals anywhere in prose, and a reading that REPORTS a disposition is most of what a reading legitimately does. From here the detector matches the structural shape only: a top-level field in the reader's own output carrying the reserved name, never the name inside a sentence or a quotation. Rejected: accepting and flagging for a human (the gate exists so a human is not the filter); banning the words in the readers' prompts (a detection reading must be able to say that one section says merged and another says pending).
2026-09-01 — The supply-regime gate refuses only a real decision field (maintainer, ruling on iss-2608311518056854). Fourteen of thirty-four realistic readings were refused for quoting the document they read, because the disposition detector fires on the bare token followed by a colon or equals anywhere in prose, and a reading that REPORTS a disposition is most of what a reading legitimately does. From here the detector matches the structural shape only: a top-level field in the reader's own output carrying the reserved name, never the name inside a sentence or a quotation. Rejected: accepting and flagging for a human (the gate exists so a human is not the filter); banning the words in the readers' prompts (a detection reading must be able to say that one section says merged and another says pending).
Frontmatter
| id | dcn-2609010000000003 |
|---|---|
| type | decision |
| date | 2026-09-01 |
.abcd/work/decisions/dcn-2609010000000003-the-supply-regime-gate-refuses-only-a.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
mentions1
- iss-2608311518056854The supply-regime registry refuses a reading for quoting the document it read, and the rate is high: fourteen of thirty-four realistic reading outputs were refused, all by one failure mode. The disposition detector matches the bare token followed by a colon or equals, and this repository's records carry that token everywhere, so any explicative claim that quotes a record refuses. So do a claim reporting that a clause settles a licensing question, a claim quoting a paper that closes by recommending further study, a claim reporting that a suite scores below a threshold, and a detection reading that one section says a fix is merged while another says it is pending, which is the canonical shape of a detection finding. This is not the NFKC normalisation, which was measured innocent: an A/B over thirty-four cases flipped five outcomes and every one was the registry's own phrase in compatibility code points, with no innocent case newly refused. The noise predates it and is structural, because the detectors cannot distinguish a reading that PROPOSES from a reading that REPORTS someone else proposing, and the second is most of what a reading legitimately does. The intent records signature noise as its open question, but the disclosed residue names only under-catching; on this evidence over-catching is the larger risk and the residue should say so.