Skip to content

docs(EXPLAINME): add L1/L3/L4 claim sections per PRESERVATION-DESIGN §12.3#257

Merged
hyperpolymath merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/explainme-four-layers-claims
May 30, 2026
Merged

docs(EXPLAINME): add L1/L3/L4 claim sections per PRESERVATION-DESIGN §12.3#257
hyperpolymath merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
docs/explainme-four-layers-claims

Conversation

@hyperpolymath
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

Executes formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md §12.3 — the EXPLAINME rollout.

What changed

  1. "Dyadic Type System" → "Dyadic Type System (L2)" — labelled and cross-references the README four-layers section + EPHAPAX-VISION.adoc. Adds the Coq-side L2 evidence pointer (linear_to_affine Qed in formal/Modality.v).
  2. New claim: "Sibling-safe region capabilities (L1)" — inserted after Region-Based Memory. Cites Counterexample.v + has_type_l1 judgment + §3-§4 design rationale. Honestly labels 9 residual L1 admits as L2-integration debt.
  3. New claim: "Irreversibility residue is first-class (L3, planned)" — upstream + local evidence pointers; integration honestly labelled planned.
  4. New claim: "Dyadic mode is project-level only (L4)" — cites formal/L4.v definitions + L4-DYADIC.md design note; explicit "no theorems by design" claim.

Honesty constraint preserved

§12.3 explicitly says: "the evidence is the design doc + counterexample, not a passing proof — say so honestly". The new sections follow that — where evidence is a design doc or planned, it is labelled as such.

Scope

Pure documentation. Companion to README #256 (§12.2 half).

Test plan

  • All claims back-cite a real artefact (verified each pointer exists in repo).
  • GPG-signed commit.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

hyperpolymath and others added 2 commits May 31, 2026 00:15
…N §12.2 + L4 truth fix

Executes `formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md` §12.2 steps 1-4 verbatim:

1. Add a new `== The four layers` section between `== What this is`
   and `== Three superpowers`, listing L1-L4 in a `[cols="1,3"]`
   table.
2. Update the "Dyadic discipline" row to label `(L2)` and
   cross-reference the new section.
3. Replace the "Region-based memory" row with the L1 framing
   (capability threading + sibling region-exit invariant).
4. Add the "Soundness story" footnote block linking the four-layer
   separation to the verified counterexample.

Also fixes a stale truth claim on line 66:
"`L4` (dyadic mode) not started" → scaffold has landed
(`formal/L4.v` carries `ProgramMode` + `program_mode_to_modality`).

Source authority: `formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md §12.2` (the rollout
spec) + `formal/L4-DYADIC.md` (which prescribes L4 as
definitions-only by design, hence no proof obligations claim in the
README table).

No proof, code, or workflow changes. Pure documentation rollout.

Closes the README half of `PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md §12.2`; companion
edits to EXPLAINME.adoc / ROADMAP.adoc / SPEC.md are §12.3-12.7 and
not in scope of this PR.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…§12.3

Executes `formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md` §12.3 (EXPLAINME rollout):

1. **Weaken the "Dyadic Type System" claim** by labelling it `(L2)`
   and adding a cross-reference to the README four-layers section
   and `EPHAPAX-VISION.adoc`. Also adds the Coq-side L2 evidence
   pointer (`linear_to_affine` Qed in `formal/Modality.v`).

2. **New claim block: "Sibling-safe region capabilities (L1)"**
   inserted after "Region-Based Memory". Cites the `Counterexample.v`
   `Qed` lemmas, the `has_type_l1` judgment in `formal/TypingL1.v`,
   and the §3-§4 design rationale. Honestly marks the 9 residual
   L1 admits as L2-integration debt.

3. **New claim block: "Irreversibility residue is first-class
   (L3, planned)"** with both upstream (`echo-types`) and local
   (`formal/Echo.v`) evidence pointers. Honestly labels integration
   as planned — `Echo.v` is mechanised, but no ephapax typing rule
   yet introduces `TEcho`.

4. **New claim block: "Dyadic mode is project-level only (L4)"**
   citing `formal/L4.v` definitions + `formal/L4-DYADIC.md` design
   note. Explicitly says no theorems by design, surface syntax not
   yet wired.

The honesty constraint from §12.3 is preserved throughout: where
evidence is a design doc or planned, it is labelled as such — not
presented as a passing proof.

No proof, code, workflow, or schema changes. Pure documentation
rollout. Companion to README #256 (the §12.2 half).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@hyperpolymath hyperpolymath enabled auto-merge (squash) May 30, 2026 23:17
@hyperpolymath hyperpolymath merged commit e897844 into main May 30, 2026
7 of 16 checks passed
@hyperpolymath hyperpolymath deleted the docs/explainme-four-layers-claims branch May 30, 2026 23:37
hyperpolymath added a commit that referenced this pull request May 31, 2026
…N §12.4 (#258)

## Summary

Executes [`formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md`
§12.4](../blob/main/formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md) — the EPHAPAX-VISION
rollout.

Inserts a new section between `== The Dyad` and `== One Language, One
Feel` titled **`== The Dyad and the Layers`**.

The spec's instruction is verbatim:

> The vision doc already articulates the dyad beautifully (mother /
child, "ephapax means once for all" double-meaning, "Linear ⊂ Affine in
valid programs", "one language, one feel"). The four-layer story
*extends* this; it does not replace it.

So this PR is purely additive — no existing content is reworded,
removed, or reshaped. The new section maps each layer onto what the dyad
says about it (L1: identical; L2: the dyad itself; L3: mother demands
residue be observed; L4: which side you speak from), and closes with:
*"The dyad remains primary. The layers are how the dyad's promises are
enforced."*

## Companion PRs

- #256 — README §12.2 rollout
- #257 — EXPLAINME §12.3 claims

## Test plan

- [x] Diff is purely additive (49 insertions, 0 deletions).
- [x] GPG-signed commit.
- [x] All layer claims back-cite the proof artefact in the parent design
doc.

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
hyperpolymath added a commit that referenced this pull request May 31, 2026
…2.6 (#261)

## Summary

Executes [`formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md`
§12.6](../blob/main/formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md) — the canonical-spec
rollout.

### What changed

One-paragraph intro added to both spec documents:

- `spec/SPEC.md` (formal versioned spec) — inserted after §1.1 Overview.
- `spec/ephapax-spec.md` (complete-language spec v0.1) — inserted after
the Purpose block.

The paragraph:
1. Names the four orthogonal disciplines (L1 / L2 / L3 / L4).
2. Explicitly labels the normative scope (L1 + L2) vs forward-looking
scope (L3 + L4) — directly from the §12.6 spec.
3. Cross-references `EPHAPAX-VISION.adoc` and `PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md`.

### Out of scope (deliberately)

§12.6's bullet list also calls for:
- Full L1 sibling-safety **theorem** statement in the spec.
- Marking L3 (Echo) as "future extension; not normative" in a dedicated
subsection.

Those are substantive spec edits that should each be reviewed
individually per the per-document rollout pattern §12 establishes.
Filing them as separate follow-up PRs.

## Companion PRs

- #256 — README §12.2
- #257 — EXPLAINME §12.3
- #258 — vision §12.4
- #259 — ROADMAP §12.5
- #260 — ephapax-linear §12.7

## Test plan

- [x] GPG-signed commit.
- [x] Both spec files get identical intro paragraph (verified by diff).
- [x] Cross-references point to existing files in this repo.

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
hyperpolymath added a commit that referenced this pull request May 31, 2026
…odalities" per PRESERVATION-DESIGN §12.7 (#260)

## Summary

Executes [`formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md`
§12.7](../blob/main/formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md) — the ephapax-linear
sublanguage docs rollout.

### What changed

1. **Naming-note banner** added at the top of the README content (after
the existing first-read disambiguation), explaining that the crate name
`ephapax-linear` is historical and that it implements **both** L2
modalities (Linear + Affine). Two admissible-derivation regimes over the
same syntax/semantics, not two languages.
2. **Section heading rename**: "Dual Grammars" → "Two L2 Modalities" per
the spec.
3. Banner links to `EPHAPAX-VISION.adoc` (dyad framing) and
`PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md §5` (L2 layer).

### What is NOT changed

- The existing AffineScript disambiguation block at the top is
untouched.
- The grammar-comparison table contents are unchanged (just the
heading).

## Companion PRs

- #256 — README §12.2
- #257 — EXPLAINME §12.3
- #258 — vision §12.4
- #259 — ROADMAP §12.5

## Test plan

- [x] GPG-signed commit.
- [x] All cross-references point to existing files in this repo.

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
hyperpolymath added a commit that referenced this pull request May 31, 2026
…IGN §12.5 (#259)

## Summary

Executes [`formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md`
§12.5](../blob/main/formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md) — the ROADMAP
rollout.

Inserts a new top-level section between the status snapshot and the
formal-proof-status section titled **`== Four-layer redesign (2026-05-26
→ )`**, structuring the L1/L2/L3/L4 implementation order with a
per-layer current status.

### What this provides that the existing file lacked

The pre-existing `[#preservation-closure-plan]` section is already
correctly labelled "superseded by four-layer redesign", but it only
provides *negative* orientation (what was). This new section provides
the *positive* organising structure (what is + what's next + per-layer
status) the spec asks for.

### Per-layer status snapshot

- **L1**: landed (judgment + step relation); 9 admits remain as
L2-integration debt.
- **L2**: landed (PRs #176 + #177); `linear_to_affine` Qed zero axioms.
- **L3**: calculus mechanised (`Echo.v`); typing-rule integration is
next-block work.
- **L4**: mechanical scaffold landed (`L4.v`); surface syntax not yet
wired.

## Companion PRs

- #256 — README §12.2 four-layers section
- #257 — EXPLAINME §12.3 claims
- #258 — vision §12.4 dyad-and-layers

## Test plan

- [x] Diff is purely additive (54 insertions, 0 deletions).
- [x] GPG-signed commit.
- [x] All claims back-cite the proof artefact or design doc.

🤖 Generated with [Claude Code](https://claude.com/claude-code)

Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
@github-actions
Copy link
Copy Markdown

🔍 Hypatia Security Scan

Findings: 73 issues detected

Severity Count
🔴 Critical 9
🟠 High 16
🟡 Medium 48

⚠️ Action Required: Critical security issues found!

View findings
[
  {
    "reason": "Action perpolymath/standards/.github/workflows/governance-reusable.yml@main\n needs attention",
    "type": "unpinned_action",
    "file": "governance.yml",
    "action": "pin_sha",
    "rule_module": "workflow_audit",
    "severity": "medium"
  },
  {
    "reason": "Issue in abi-verify.yml",
    "type": "missing_timeout_minutes",
    "file": "abi-verify.yml",
    "action": "flag",
    "rule_module": "workflow_audit",
    "severity": "medium"
  },
  {
    "reason": "Issue in codeql.yml",
    "type": "missing_timeout_minutes",
    "file": "codeql.yml",
    "action": "flag",
    "rule_module": "workflow_audit",
    "severity": "medium"
  },
  {
    "reason": "Issue in coq-build.yml",
    "type": "missing_timeout_minutes",
    "file": "coq-build.yml",
    "action": "flag",
    "rule_module": "workflow_audit",
    "severity": "medium"
  },
  {
    "reason": "Issue in coq-build.yml",
    "type": "missing_timeout_minutes",
    "file": "coq-build.yml",
    "action": "flag",
    "rule_module": "workflow_audit",
    "severity": "medium"
  },
  {
    "reason": "Issue in coq-build.yml",
    "type": "missing_timeout_minutes",
    "file": "coq-build.yml",
    "action": "flag",
    "rule_module": "workflow_audit",
    "severity": "medium"
  },
  {
    "reason": "Issue in governance.yml",
    "type": "missing_timeout_minutes",
    "file": "governance.yml",
    "action": "flag",
    "rule_module": "workflow_audit",
    "severity": "medium"
  },
  {
    "reason": "Issue in hypatia-scan.yml",
    "type": "missing_timeout_minutes",
    "file": "hypatia-scan.yml",
    "action": "flag",
    "rule_module": "workflow_audit",
    "severity": "medium"
  },
  {
    "reason": "Issue in mirror.yml",
    "type": "missing_timeout_minutes",
    "file": "mirror.yml",
    "action": "flag",
    "rule_module": "workflow_audit",
    "severity": "medium"
  },
  {
    "reason": "Issue in rust-ci.yml",
    "type": "missing_timeout_minutes",
    "file": "rust-ci.yml",
    "action": "flag",
    "rule_module": "workflow_audit",
    "severity": "medium"
  }
]

Powered by Hypatia Neurosymbolic CI/CD Intelligence

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant