The audit was the right precondition: THREE of the six corrected functions were families already
queued for the item-3 sweep, and each would have failed 0/137 exactly the way five families did
earlier today.
SWEEP: 6 corrected functions, all non-jr families with 137 live stubs -> 685 BANKED / 137 failed.
Five families landed 137/137; func_80146750 failed on its own residual (undiagnosed).
GATES: R22 clean-fleet 140 passed, 0 failed of 140 — after the header batch alone AND after the
banks; tools-health OK (corpus 0 PHANTOM + 0 TRUNCATED, cdecl, audit-binaries, dedup 1886/0);
0 NON_MATCHING (G4).
METRICS: instr 86.3% -> 86.5% (11338739 -> 11372304 = +33,565 ins); fn-count 90.88% -> 91.08%
(321472 -> 322157 = +685); distinct-code 76.9% -> 76.9% (+0).
§111 GOT ITS FIRST PREDICTIVE TEST AND PASSED: all six families have a single h_exact class, so the
model predicted +0 distinct BEFORE the sweep ran, and +0 is what happened. The metric is modelled,
not mysterious.
Drew T
f59ae302b8