13 agents, 63 gap reports: 7 CONFIRMED, 2 REJECTED, 56 already-covered. TWO of the seven correct
laws banked EARLIER THE SAME SESSION, from two independent readers -- the adversarial-verifier
design earning its cost.
§189-A (banked this morning) claimed an interloper between a split constant's lui/ori PROVES the
target wrote two source steps, because the halves are LUID-adjacent and "no statement order and no
pin can put a third constant between them". Byte-refuted four ways: the banked one-statement slice
`prim.col[1] = 0x101010;` compiles with SEVEN insns between its lui and ori; the two-step spelling
§189-A prescribes is BYTE-IDENTICAL (the fix is inert); moving an unrelated statement moves a third
constant in and out of the gap; and one separated pair is 0x88888889 -- gcc's synthesized reciprocal
magic for a `/ 0x3C`, a constant with NO source spelling, making "the target wrote two steps"
unsatisfiable. rank_for_schedule tests INSN_PRIORITY FIRST (sched.c:2395) and reaches the LUID
tie-break only at :2428, so the derivation dropped its equal-priority scope; the real separator is
the BIRTHING BOOST (birthing_insn_p, gated reg_n_sets == 1), which the split pair can never have
because try_split gives its pseudo two sets. Verified off cc1's own -dS dump, which also corrects
the submitting reader: sched1 is a BACKWARD list scheduler, so it is the LUI that sinks, not the ORI.
8 separated pairs across 5 functions in 3 binaries. §189-A's split-TIMING half survives and now
carries a correction banner.
Recovery note: this run was killed by the session usage limit with 3 verifiers outstanding;
resumeFromRunId replayed 10 cached agents and re-ran 3 for 398k tokens vs the original 1.31M.
Drew T
a89d7ae0af