mirror of
https://github.com/Druthulu/BFM-decomp
synced 2026-09-27 22:45:39 -04:00
Drew T
35d00fe3ec
Answering "did you bank the results": the two serial functions did NOT match, so there was nothing
to bank (G3 -- NEAR is not a match). Everything that DID match this session is already banked and
committed (7 from the S4 redo, 24 wave exemplars + propagations, both giants x138).
But the drafts were about to be LOST, which is worse than not banking them:
.run/s42/ov_SC01_077/func_8017C294.c NEAR(12) of 246 ~245k subagent tokens
.run/s42/ov_SC03_126/func_8017C6F4.c NEAR(63) of 947 ~434k subagent tokens
.run/s42/ov_SC03_126/func_8017C6F4.pin-t5.c NEAR(47), pinned variant
All three were gitignored -- one `git clean` from gone (R20: commit irreplaceable work). Added a
curated /.run/s42/ allowlist and committed them. They are the best base any future attempt has:
func_8017C6F4 has frame 0x120 + vars=232 EXACT with only a register rotation left, and its permuter
has never been aimed at it (make_base_c fails on the gte_ macro block -- demacroize first).
Both logged to the backlog with today's MEASURED values, class, reach and draft path.
⚠️ LEDGER INTEGRITY, flagged not silently fixed: the backlog already held
`func_8017C6F4 closeness=14` (2026-07-01, ov_SC03_010, source=bulk-harvest) -- BETTER than today's
63, but with **draft: None, klass: None, nins: None, reach: None**. There is no artifact behind it
and no draft of it survives on disk (today's agent scanned every stored draft and found two, both
junk). `load_best` takes the LOWEST closeness per address, so this unverifiable row will out-rank
today's real, reproducible 63 in every future target selection.
This is the Phase-28 defect class (`func_80178004` recorded close=0 when it was 91). It is left in
place rather than deleted because deciding between "a lost good draft" and "a bad number" needs
evidence I do not have. **Whoever picks this up: treat the 14 as UNVERIFIED, start from the
committed 63/47 drafts, and if the 14 cannot be reproduced, purge the row.**
The general rule this argues for: a backlog row with no draft artifact is a rumour, not a result --
`backlog.py log` should require a draft path (or mark the row unverifiable) so an artifact-less
number cannot outrank a reproducible one.