The §163z catalogue was 34 crack-agent note-sets claiming 190 distinct laws.
One independent skeptic per function, each required to read the full notes,
grep the whole cookbook, classify, and GRADE THE EVIDENCE:
NEW 20 · SHARPENS 62 · COVERED 80 · UNSOUND 28
byte-probed 114 · single-instance 51 · asserted 25
57% of what the crack agents flagged as novel was already in the cookbook or
does not survive scrutiny. That ratio is the lesson: a crack agent is the right
instrument for FINDING a lever and the wrong one for judging its novelty — it
has just spent hours in one function and has not read the other 497 sections.
Never bank a wave's flags directly.
Banked as §164-01..82, each carrying its verdict, what it sharpens, and its
evidence grade (70 byte-probed, 12 single-instance). Several skeptics CORRECTED
the mechanism the crack agent proposed while confirming its effect — e.g. the
"fold distributes the constant out of an index" claim, where the skeptic traced
the real site to expand_expr's MULT_EXPR EXPAND_SUM case (expr.c:5359-5375)
after showing pointer_int_sum's distributive law cannot fire on that tree.
§164z records the 28 REFUTED claims with the reason, so no future wave spends
tokens rediscovering them.
cookbook_index.py: 501 sections.
Drew T
137a8540b5