Arm C is NOT defined in docs/2026-09-02-k3-k4-k5-metode.md -- that file
contains no occurrence of the word, and neither Arm A nor Arm B is defined
there either. The definition implemented here was written for order
20260904T145630Z and is reported as the author's, never as a ratified one.
Arm C = Arm B's mechanical rules, plus one deterministic rule that cuts
any proposed span longer than a declared cap at the nearest paragraph
boundary at or before it, the whole document counting as one span when
the rules find no boundary at all.
One rule and not two, on purpose. The two failure modes the K2 rebuild
measured -- a PDF with no outline (Bilag 9.1, 217 472 characters) and a PDF
whose headings are its table of contents, so the trailing segment absorbs
the body (Bilag 3.1, Bilag 1) -- are the same failure of SIZE, and a second
rule aimed at each would confound which one moved the number.
`--max-segment-chars` defaults to 0, which is OFF: the artifact is then
byte-identical to Arm B's, pinned by a test that writes both and compares
bytes. The standard profile does not move, and the K2 bundle a consumer is
running against right now is not rebuilt.
What Arm C deliberately does NOT change: the region before the first
candidate is still covered by no segment. That is a real coverage defect --
the K3 baseline's blind rater named it -- and fixing it here would put two
changes behind one measurement.
A part carries TWO rule names in `derived`: the heading rule that opened the
span, and `rule:size-split` for the cut. Dropping the first would make a
part traceable to arithmetic and nothing else.
Tests first: 13 red, then green. 1055 -> 1068.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Measured on the K2 corpus 2026-09-03: 11 of 39 documents proposed zero
segments -- overwhelmingly PDFs with no declared structure, which Topic 1b
had already measured at 23 of 33. The proposer wrote an artifact for each
of them and exited 0.
An empty plan cannot be replayed. `process_inbox` refuses one by design,
because a plan naming no entry would persist nothing for a document that
was dropped, so the only thing a zero-entry file can do is fail a run
later -- and it did: the first segmented corpus run stopped on
`segmentation_plan_invalid` before writing a single concept.
Exit 1 with no artifact, distinct from 2, so a driver can tell "this
document lands as one flat concept" from "stop". The orphan check's test
now observes the same property through the status.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Measured on the K2 corpus 2026-09-03: 39 documents proposed 618 entries
under 601 distinct paths -- 17 paths were claimed by two documents each.
Section numbering is document-local (`1 Innledning` is in most procurement
documents), so this is structural, not unlucky. Every collision reaches
Door B's gate, which refuses per DOCUMENT, so those documents would land as
coded rejections rather than concepts and a corpus run could not be built
at all.
`--path-prefix` is an argument and not something the tool derives: the
proposer sees ONE document and cannot know what else is in the bundle. It
is reduced to the id grammar before anything is read, and a prefix that
reduces to nothing is refused rather than silently producing the unscoped
paths the caller asked to avoid. Without the flag every artifact already
produced is byte-identical.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
