27 note-sets, 197 claims, one skeptic each, against a cookbook already holding
§162-§166 from this campaign:
NEW 5 · SHARPENS 43 · COVERED 126 · UNSOUND 23
byte-probed 92 · single-instance 75 · asserted 30
COVERED+UNSOUND: 57% (§164) -> 64% (§165) -> 76% (here). The duplicate rate
rises monotonically as the base grows. FIVE genuinely new laws out of 197
claims is the signal that the idiom well for this class of function is
approaching dry — future waves should spend tokens on cracks, not on mining
notes for idioms, and harvest only what a skeptic grades byte-probed.
The skeptics ran their own A/Bs this round. Best example: a crack agent claimed
"the source STATEMENT BOUNDARY decides whether the scheduler hoists a
far-consumed load". The vetter built that spelling and got .text BYTE-IDENTICAL
to the inline form, then swept eight POSITIONS and got five distinct objects —
showing the lever is statement position (the already-banked INSN_LUID
tie-break), not the boundary. Plausible mechanism, refuted by measurement, true
lever named in its place.
46 entries banked as §167-01..46; §167z records the 23 refutations.
cookbook_index.py: 508 sections.
Drew T
57ff04c1ac