Development record
The 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.
The 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.
Grounds
- pursued: a detector that cannot separate a reading proposing from a reading reporting somebody else proposing belongs on the observed side of the line until it can, and the flags a first real reading raises are the calibration to reconsider it on; a real reading whose findings survive enforcement, or a flagged corpus that is mostly genuine breaches, would show this wrong
- pursued: a detector that cannot separate a reading proposing from a reading reporting somebody else proposing should not read prose at all, and the item's own key set is the unambiguous shape it can read instead; a corpus of honest reports refused by the structural rule, or a real decision field that lands because it was written as prose rather than as a field, would show this wrong
Frontmatter
| id | iss-2608311518056854 |
|---|---|
| type | issue |
| lifecycle | resolved |
| severity | major |
.abcd/work/issues/resolved/iss-2608311518056854-the-supply-regime-registry-refuses-a.md
open on GitHub ↗ · commit history ↗
mentions5
- dcn-26090100000000032026-09-01 — 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).
- dcn-26090200000000012026-09-02 — The 2026-09-01 supply-regime ruling reverses the 2026-08-31 degrade-to-flag decision (recorded at the maintainer's ruling, flagged as a reversal for the record). On 2026-08-31 the four prose signatures were degraded from refusing to flagging, so an honest report that tripped one landed with a review flag; the 2026-09-01 ruling names accept-and-flag as rejected and keeps only the structural rule, a reserved name as a key of the reader's own output. The implementation withdraws the signature registry and the review-flag plumbing it alone fed, since a detector that produces nothing is dead scaffolding, and re-stamps iss-2608311518056854, which the 31 August change had already resolved, under the new ruling with no `Resolves:` trailer, because RS001 refuses a trailer for an id that entered resolved/ before the branch diverged.
- iss-2609012259571458The supply-regime check has a flag mode in code but no seam that can select it, so the design's degradation path cannot be taken
- itd-185One ingest verb validates every cold-reading output — including what the reading was licensed to produce, not only what it saw
- spc-63The cold-reading output contract: a strict per-position schema, a supply-regime gate, and a staged ingest that leaves evidence or nothing