Repository navigation
docs(readme): reconcile Tutorials section to current state (full T1–T8 published) - #41
Merged
Conversation
…8 published) The README §Tutorials pointer still said "the core trio (Setup → First Session → Cautionary Use) is published" — written when only T1/T2/T5 had shipped. The full eight-tutorial track (T1–T8) landed via KJ5HST#40, so this present-tense, user-facing line now under-claims; point it at the complete track. Scope is deliberately just this one live current-state line. The DATED changelog entries ("What's New in v2.9" and the CLAUDE.md Versioning bullet, which still say the core trio shipped / "Roadmap T3/T4/T6/T7/T8 remain") are left verbatim by design — they accurately record what v2.9 shipped, per the v2.7.1 "a changelog records what shipped at the time" convention. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
rmsharp
added a commit
to rmsharp/methodology
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 23, 2026
rmsharp
added a commit
to rmsharp/methodology
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 21, 2026
…lines, not records From the BL-82 measurement: git's merge=union kept real ledger entries whole but fused two real receipts into one block with two session: lines, exit 0, because receipts share their fence lines. Countermeasure: merge two real records from the ledger's history and run its checker; exit 0 is not "whole". 1,142 B. D3 discharged by explicit refusal: KJ5HST#31, KJ5HST#33, KJ5HST#41, KJ5HST#58 and KJ5HST#82 considered; none meets (a), (b) or (c). check-learnings: 76 rows, 15..90, 0 over budget. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
rmsharp
added a commit
to rmsharp/methodology
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 27, 2026
…earning #96 docs/planning/BACKLOG.md 58,727 -> 35,296 B, 21,454 B under the 56,750 B one-read budget it was 1,977 B over. Dashboard risk HIGH -> MEDIUM, High+ count 1 -> 0, health 76/100 unchanged. No outward action was taken and none was asked for: nothing pushed, no branch touched, KJ5HST#83-KJ5HST#87 exactly as Phase 0 found them. Phase 3A -- S222's handoff scored 9/10. Its "read the dry run's shard name rather than predicting it" was the trap S221 fell into, and following it produced both the right answer and a diagnostic nobody had seen (CUT_STRADDLES_DAY). Its byte figure for the backlog became this session's deliverable and its acceptance criterion, and both re-measured exactly. Missing: nothing about the fixture coupling that was this session's largest hazard. Wrong: "CHANGELOG.md IS ~155 KB" against 161,678 B measured, ~7 KB low, hedged and harmless. Phase 3B -- self-assessed 9/10. The proof shape was decided from measurement, not from the claim's recorded worry, whose premise turned out false and is stated rather than dropped. Every referrer was enumerated before editing, which found the C4 coupling. All five checks proved killable, including redoing an invalid mutation of my own. The reduction was made durable by moving the editing rule. Self-caught slips: a [[wiki]] link in the receipt stub, a grep -c against indented rows, a git checkout -- that invalidated one mutation run. Operator corrections to the work: 0. One instruction added (task picker at Phase 0), applied same session. Phase 3C -- fork Learning #96 appended (1,497 B; 82 rows, contiguous 15..96). D3's retirement is owed and is REFUSED with the rows named and the criterion tested against each -- and this is the THIRD CONSECUTIVE REFUSAL (S221, S222, S223), flagged here rather than left to be noticed. KJ5HST#24: criterion (a) tested, not assumed -- Test 29 was rewired to read live + archives at S87, but that mechanizes one instance, not the rule; this session enumerated consumers by hand and found one no test covers, which is #96. KJ5HST#26: its example is now falsified for this very file, but a stale example is never a ground and its method is ungated. KJ5HST#31, KJ5HST#41, KJ5HST#15, KJ5HST#78, KJ5HST#58, KJ5HST#85 each considered with its reason. No later row states any at least as generally; every row's artifact exists. Phase 3E -- gate citation from a --no-local clone of 27b1c33: quality_ratchet 11/11 pass - 0 fail - 0 unmeasured - results 10575dac7361 - manifest 01a4ae7aa511, exit 0, identical to Phase 0's at 73157d0. bin/tests.sh 343 passed / 0 failed / 6 skipped three times. check-handoff and --all OK; the receipt was refused four times on the 12,288 B per-record budget and row #96 three times on the 1,500 B row budget -- both cut shorter rather than raised. Two findings recorded, not fixed (FM KJ5HST#17): the replaced heading named 19 of the 33 rows present; .context-budget.json:73's structure.why claims its pattern matches "the 19 open-item rows and NOT the Completed items table" where today it matched 53 and 10. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
rmsharp
added a commit
to rmsharp/methodology
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 28, 2026
…rately Deliverable cb9b0ed: the read-cap row asserts only what it evaluated. Fork-side only; no upstream PR was granted or opened. Self 8, predecessor 9 -- S228's -4 forecast was exact and the grep check it wrote caught this session's duplicated receipt before it committed. Verified RED-first: two new tests failed 5 times before the edit; 338 tests OK after, both class pins unchanged. Final tree d34bd5b: 343/0/6 and 11/11 pass, results 22227e3813bb. Fleet diff: 3 rows changed, 29 identical, no severity moved. Phase 3C appended no row. The candidate lesson is already stated more generally by fork Learning KJ5HST#70, which names this exact mechanism -- and earned its keep here, since tests-sh-passed read 349 at the fix and 343 at the final tree. No retirement is owed; D3 is keyed to appending. Rows considered: KJ5HST#70, KJ5HST#41, KJ5HST#32, KJ5HST#30. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
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
1 participant
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.
What
One-line reconciliation of the README §Tutorials pointer. It still read "the core trio (Setup → First Session → Cautionary Use) is published," written when only T1/T2/T5 had shipped. The full eight-tutorial track (T1–T8) landed via #40, so this present-tense, user-facing line now under-claims:
Scope
Deliberately just the one live current-state line. The dated changelog entries —
README"What's New in v2.9" and theCLAUDE.mdVersioning bullet ("Roadmap T3/T4/T6/T7/T8 remain") — are left verbatim by design: they accurately record what v2.9 shipped, per the v2.7.1 "a changelog records what shipped at the time" convention.No principle, phase, gate, workstream, or failure-mode changes.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code