T55's two-part next step as one job. +20,944 instructions banked.
1. THE LEVER WAS UNREACHABLE FROM THE PATH MOST FAMILIES USE (cookbook §107)
§103 was wired into jtbl_family_bank only (T53), and that tool runs for has_mid_jr families.
Everything else sweeps through family_sweep, which gates via PLAIN harvest_verify by design — so
the lever existed, was byte-proven, and most families could not reach it. The symptom was
indistinguishable from a compiler wall: func_80144090 swept 0/136 with `conflicting types for
D_800A651C`.
Why it does not violate the plain-harvest_verify rule: that rule exists because gate_stage's
transforms PERTURB A CORRECT DRAFT (§19/T3). The tu-scope never touches the draft — it moves a
DECLARATION IN THE TARGET TU. The test is not "is it a transform" but "does it change the draft?"
Reused the existing undo instead of inventing one: family_sweep already snapshots TUs it edits at
staging time (--normalize-self-decls) and reverts on a final MISMATCH (not byte-neutral) AND on a
zero-bank group (§61 undo law — no dead diff). The tu-scope shares that dict and inherits both
backstops; renamed nsd_snapshots -> tu_snapshots. Default ON with --no-tu-scope to A/B it (the T24
--allow-pins precedent): byte-neutral by construction, a no-op when nothing collides, auto-reverted
when it buys nothing.
2. THE DUPLICATE-DECL REFUSAL RELAXED — AND IT DID NOT MATTER
scope_tu_externs refused N>1 file-scope decls as "ambiguous"; duplicate-IDENTICAL externs are legal
C, so N identical decls are one decl written N times. Now compares whitespace-collapsed forms and
refuses only on genuine disagreement. MEASURED, and my hypothesis was WRONG: D_800B9A02 is 3 decls
in 2 DIFFERENT forms, so it was correctly refused all along — the family banked 136/136 without it.
RESULT: func_80144090 0/136 -> 136/136, 0 failed, with NO change to any draft.
GATES: R22 clean-fleet 140 passed, 0 failed of 140. tools-health OK (corpus 0 PHANTOM + 0 TRUNCATED,
cdecl, audit-binaries, report/lint/dedup 1886/0). 0 NON_MATCHING (G4).
METRICS (reconciled against make report):
instr-weighted 85.7% -> 85.8% 11258063 -> 11279007 = +20,944 ins
fn-count 90.65% -> 90.69% 320656 -> 320792 = +136
distinct-code 76.4% -> 76.4% +0 (67812 unique, UNCHANGED)
FLAGGING the third row rather than explaining it away: 136 banked functions moved distinct-code by
ZERO, where T52's 132 moved it by +125, and both families are classed PURE. I do not have a verified
cause and will not invent one — either a real property of this family or a gap in the metric. Worth
one probe before that number is quoted again.
Drew T
56e2d808ab