The phase's FIRST merge was rejected: "expected three or four fields", while all four workers
were already staging files in the format my charter had given them.
charter said: range<TAB>source<TAB>md5<TAB>differing_bytes<TAB>result<TAB>options
with range written 0xSTART..0xEND
tool reads: start<TAB>end<TAB>source[<TAB>overrides]
Finding 179 says a rule every worker must follow belongs in a TRACKED tool, not in a file each
worker copies, because a copied artefact cannot be fixed for the people who already copied it.
Phase 11 earned that from a worker's free.sh. **A charter IS a file each worker copies**, so
writing a FORMAT into prose recreates the defect one level up — and this time the unfixable
copied artefact was the coordinator's.
AND THE TOOL HAD ALREADY LEARNED IT. validate_overrides exists because a Phase 11 worker put
md5= in the 4th column, and its error message says in terms: "Per-claim metadata such as a
source md5 belongs in report.tsv, not in the registry row." The convention was documented
INSIDE THE TOOL, I did not read it, and I wrote prose contradicting it — including renaming
the evidence file to evidence.tsv when report.tsv is the established name in the tool's own
error string and in every Phase 8/9/11 worker's staging directory.
Standing rule: before writing a staging format, an interface, or an exit-code contract into a
charter, READ THE TOOL THAT ENFORCES IT. "The tool is the contract" is not advice for workers
only. Workers compute addresses rather than eyeballing them; the coordinator must derive
formats rather than inventing them.
FIXED AS A COMMAND, NOT AS CORRECTED PROSE. New `sf3_merge check-claims --claims F [--regions R]`
validates the format, flags a duplicate start, a missing source file and an already-registered
row, so a worker answers "is my staging mergeable?" itself before reporting. 11 tests, one of
which asserts THE CHARTER'S OWN WRONG FORMAT IS REJECTED, so the message stays honest for the
next coordinator — who will also write prose.
Charter §10 rewritten to specify the tool's format by READING THE TOOL, to separate claims.tsv
(the merge input) from report.tsv (the evidence, where the md5 lives), and to name
check-claims as a required pre-report step; §5 gained rule 17.
What worked: fail-fast validation caught it in under a second at the merge, not as a confusing
failure at the gate. Phase 11's override-key guard paid off again. A staging format a tool can
CHECK is worth more than one that is documented well.
Cost: one rejected merge, four correction messages, ~10 minutes. Cheap because the tool refuses
to guess.
make test 301 tests, OK (from 290)
Christopher Williams
1e620cde50