19 note-sets, 131 claims, one skeptic each, vetted against a cookbook that
already held §162/§163/§164 from this same campaign:
NEW 8 · SHARPENS 39 · COVERED 64 · UNSOUND 20
byte-probed 61 · single-instance 43 · asserted 27
COVERED+UNSOUND is 64%, up from §164's 57% — the duplicate rate RISES as the
knowledge base grows. That is the argument for harvesting after EVERY wave: a
wave launched before its predecessor's harvest lands re-derives laws already on
disk. This one was banked while wave-4 propagation was still committing.
THE PASS CORRECTED ITS OWN PREDECESSOR. §165-01 BOUNDS §163a, banked hours
earlier today. §163a says "block scope is a conflict SOLVENT" — byte-proven,
but on a DATA symbol. It does NOT reach an ARITY conflict: there the two decls
are COMPATIBLE (cc1 emits no `conflicting types` for scope to downgrade) and
the failure is call-vs-composite in convert_arguments (c-typeck.c:1623), which
a `()` declaration cannot defuse at ANY scope. The diagnostic word picks the
lever: `conflicting types` -> §163a's solvent; `too many arguments` -> cast the
call site (§17a-1/§161c) or replace the host prototype.
§165z records the 20 refuted claims. cookbook_index.py: 505 sections.
Drew T
a2362e6711