docs(EXPLAINME): add L1/L3/L4 claim sections per PRESERVATION-DESIGN §12.3#257
Merged
Conversation
…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>
3 tasks
This was referenced May 30, 2026
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>
🔍 Hypatia Security ScanFindings: 73 issues detected
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 |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Executes
formal/PRESERVATION-DESIGN.md§12.3 — the EXPLAINME rollout.What changed
EPHAPAX-VISION.adoc. Adds the Coq-side L2 evidence pointer (linear_to_affineQed informal/Modality.v).Counterexample.v+has_type_l1judgment + §3-§4 design rationale. Honestly labels 9 residual L1 admits as L2-integration debt.formal/L4.vdefinitions +L4-DYADIC.mddesign 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
🤖 Generated with Claude Code