Four decisions: Door C projects and never derives (D-C1), the projection is
key-agnostic so it is not about numbering (D-C2), an unrenderable value drops
the facet and never the concept (D-C3), and a faceted entry is refreshed
because it is the first entry that can go stale (D-C4).
Also records a measurement about the measuring. The mutation harness first
reported 11 of 11 killed; the number was entirely false, because it invoked
pytest with an unrecognised `--timeout` flag and every run exited non-zero. The
negative control caught it by being reported killed when it provably could not
be. Honest result is 9 of 11, with both survivors analysed as equivalent
mutants and the one real gap they exposed (profile threading pinned only by
coincidence) closed with a direct test.
Closes open item 6 of the Door B record, which asked exactly the question this
answers: whose claim does the frontmatter make.
A deep-research report arrived mid-session (.claude broadcast 20260826T223230Z)
on a near-identical problem shape -- numbered regulatory requirements with
cross-references. Two of its numbers bear on this work: index-selection
strategy contributed +38.0 points of accuracy, and edge inference gave NO
accuracy gain at 2.8x the cost.
The second is a negative finding worth inheriting rather than re-measuring. It
does not condemn what landed today: references and parent are EXTRACTED from
explicit tokens, and the one proposed relation is structural and costs a single
pass. It draws a line for later -- no semantic edge inference without measuring
that 2.8x against our own corpus first.
The report also states that no published source gives per-query token counts
for structured versus flat context, and none reports an indexed superseded-by
facet. That reframes today's 3.3x-6.4x cost dial: it is the tradeoff nobody has
published, which is a reason to measure it properly rather than to hide it.
Treated as a premise, not a result. An external number changes what is worth
trying next, not what this repo has proved.
Six decisions, each with the failure it prevents: confidence carried in the
format, certainty stated per field, supersession never inferred from one
document, the index as a projection rather than an append, facets as a new
profile, and Door B's ownership stamp left deliberately open.
Six findings reported as findings rather than as gaps, per the order: the cost
of closing the metadata gap is 3.3x-6.4x the flat index and whether that keeps
the OKF arm's cost advantage cannot be answered from this repo -- it needs
their bake-off re-run on their corpus; a reference to a parent-level number
does not resolve to a child, and the fix needs a real corpus before 'unique'
can be defended; OKF_V0_2's verified/status/stale_after are still expressible
and unwritten for the reason already recorded.
Every number carries its denominator, and the supersedes 0/55 carries a
known-positive control (50/55 on a corpus that has shared numbers) proving the
query can find what it reported missing.
