The t5s/t5t distill returned three 'new lever' claims and the verifier REFUTED two as rediscoveries:
* func_8017E044's zero-byte __asm__ against reorg's delay-slot steal IS §5a/§34 (+§164-33/§164-36),
already indexed at cookbook-index.md:22;
* func_8017C014's ternary-vs-if-chain LICM effect is the loop.c movable gate (REG_N_SETS==1)
already documented for a recomputed CONSTANT — here firing on a computed loop-invariant EXPR.
Only func_8017EB30's survived, as an ADDENDUM to §165-03 — and the verifier proved it by reading the
target .s itself: the same 279-ins template, same //, as §165-03's byte-proven sibling
func_8017F2D4 in the adjacent overlay. Filed with its UNPROVEN label intact (that draft did not pass
the whole-binary gate — R14/G3).
THE REAL FINDING is the rediscovery rate, so §5a gains a FINDABILITY addendum: the law was there and
the agent could not find it, because the index states the symptom as 'gcc stole an instruction into a
branch delay slot that the target leaves as nop' and what the agent actually SAW was LENGTH-DRIFT/1
at closeness 45, an extra j absent from the target, and a DUPLICATED store — the nop never appeared
in its diff at all. The addendum indexes those three alternate tells. Same shape as S64's §41
addendum: the knowledge base's gap is retrieval, not content.
Index 921 sections, green.
Drew T
1725d19ecb