A pack carrying a previous attempt said only 'the gate did not accept it, so it is wrong somewhere'.
That discards the one datum that decides how the agent spends its budget. Now the builder runs
match_one on that draft and embeds the verdict:
* near -> the closeness, the verdict sig, and the residual rows (idx / mine / tgt, capped at 16
with an honest '... N more'), plus how to READ them: two adjacent rows with the same
instructions in the opposite order = a SCHEDULE swap; a register-only difference = the
value came from the wrong place (often the copy, not the pre-copy value); a beqz/bnez
row = invert the test and swap the arms, constants included.
* match -> NOT a drafting job. The body is byte-correct in isolation and the gate refused it for an
INTEGRATION reason, so the pack names the $0 recover_integration --probe-only instead of
letting an agent burn a wave slot redrafting a correct body. If the probe also says
MATCH the residual is outside the function (the section-8e JTBL_PADS class).
Measured on the two t5u seeds, which I injected BY HAND this session before automating it:
func_8017F234 = 3 mismatched of 202 (a schedule swap + an "andi" reading the copy instead of the
pre-copy value); func_8017E7E8 = 11 of 66 (inverted branch + a cast written back into the variable
instead of a temp). Told that, an agent edits one use site; told "wrong somewhere", it re-derives 202
instructions.
Cost: one compile per target that HAS a prior draft; --no-residual opts out. Failures are swallowed
into a "(residual not measured: ...)" line — measuring must never break pack generation.
Control: rebuilt t5u's 15 packs into a scratch dir — both seeds gained the block automatically with
the same numbers I measured by hand, and a target with no prior draft is byte-identical to before.
The t5s/t5t distill returned three 'new lever' claims and the verifier REFUTED two as rediscoveries:
* func_8017E044's zero-byte __asm__ against reorg's delay-slot steal IS §5a/§34 (+§164-33/§164-36),
already indexed at cookbook-index.md:22;
* func_8017C014's ternary-vs-if-chain LICM effect is the loop.c movable gate (REG_N_SETS==1)
already documented for a recomputed CONSTANT — here firing on a computed loop-invariant EXPR.
Only func_8017EB30's survived, as an ADDENDUM to §165-03 — and the verifier proved it by reading the
target .s itself: the same 279-ins template, same //, as §165-03's byte-proven sibling
func_8017F2D4 in the adjacent overlay. Filed with its UNPROVEN label intact (that draft did not pass
the whole-binary gate — R14/G3).
THE REAL FINDING is the rediscovery rate, so §5a gains a FINDABILITY addendum: the law was there and
the agent could not find it, because the index states the symptom as 'gcc stole an instruction into a
branch delay slot that the target leaves as nop' and what the agent actually SAW was LENGTH-DRIFT/1
at closeness 45, an extra j absent from the target, and a DUPLICATED store — the nop never appeared
in its diff at all. The addendum indexes those three alternate tells. Same shape as S64's §41
addendum: the knowledge base's gap is retrieval, not content.
Index 921 sections, green.
Drew T