TWO REAL DEFECTS I INTRODUCED, both found by the audit:
1. §429 WAS SILENTLY DELETED. My §428a rewrite (commit:3659) wrote t[:start]+new instead of
t[:start]+new+t[end:], truncating everything below §428a. §429 ('every held pointer
needs its own local') was the casualty and had been gone for the rest of the session.
Restored verbatim from commit:3658, between §428a and §430. All of 426-434 now present;
index 1103 sections.
2. §434 ACCUSED AN AGENT OF INVENTING ITS CITATION OF §265. §265 exists and says exactly
what the agent said — 'THE VERBATIM-ASM BANK LANE: A FUNCTION NO -O2 C CAN EVER MATCH
BANKS AS A RAW __asm__ BODY' — with four named byte-banked precedents. I ran
cookbook_index --resolve 265, which resolves a LINE number not a section, and believed
it without opening §265. Retracted in the section itself.
The verdict also needed narrowing: gated, the §265 transcription of SaveLoadRoutine is
BYTE-IDENTICAL for the function itself and fails only because substituting one half of
the shared frame moves 3,989 bytes across 262 symbols. True statement: neither can bank
SEPARATELY; the route is to transcribe/resegment the PAIR together via §265. The
exclude entries now say 'excluded from DRAWS only' and name that route, instead of
reading as 'unmatchable'.
I also mis-read the draft as containing INCLUDE_ASM by grepping raw text — all three hits
were in comments. Sixth instance this session of reading prose as code.
Drew T
aaed146bb2