MAF measured their own tree and corrected our claim that they "round one
monetary figure": their projection rounds nothing (value_report.py:48,
0 hits for round()); the one operation is a NOK->ore quantisation at the
ledger edge (ledger.py:204-214, Decimal + ROUND_HALF_UP). Rule 1 as we
wrote it therefore solved a divergence that did not exist and opened one
that did not — it condemned their deliberate, documented quantisation as
"rendering". Adopted their proposed split as rules 1a/1b.
Then measured here, which REFUTED our own first hypothesis: we assumed
float accumulation was the divergence. It is not — 0 of 20 000 random
portfolios diverge on 2-decimal NOK input. The real mechanism is where
quantisation sits relative to summation, and it only wakes on sub-ore
input: 66.4% of totals diverge, worst 6 ore over 28 rows, and a designed
100 x 0.005 case diverges by a factor of 2.
Sub-ore input is reachable in BOTH stacks — neither ir.py:42
(claimed_saving_nok) nor ledger.py:42 (amount_nok) constrains decimals;
both are float = Field(gt=0, allow_inf_nan=False). So two stacks that
both obey 1a+1b can still return different totals on identical input,
which is exactly what A5 exists to close. Hence new rule 1c: the
amendment MUST fix one quantisation point — reject finer-than-ore claims
at the contract edge, or quantise once on the total — and both stacks
must land on the same choice.
Doc-only; no source touched. Suite 627 passed. Nothing patched
unilaterally: shared/ is pull-only and the amendment is not in commons.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MQu2xxwedckjU56byu1aUG
The operator approved the whole D-A bundle on 2026-07-25: the four spec
corrections (C-F2/C-F3/C-F4/C-F5), brief §7 (the projection contract over the
ledger), and the C-P1 collision resolved by RE-SCOPING semantic retrieval
rather than amending the frozen "structural, never textual" rule.
This is D7's contribution to the text, not the decision itself (that is
protocolled in the main repo's shared queue) and not the amendment (shared/ is
a PULL-ONLY subtree — the text must land in commons and be pulled by both
siblings). Each point carries the verbatim spec anchor it changes, proposed
RFC 2119 wording, and what we MEASURED about compatibility rather than what we
assume.
Two things are stated as open rather than settled, because they are:
- A2 (cost baseline): the golden bundle has no cost-baseline.json, so an
unconditional requirement would change the fasit bytes for both stacks. Our
wording requires a baseline only for runs that can spend; if the amendment
chooses otherwise, the fasit change must be planned in both repos.
- A5 (rounding): the divergence is live — our monetary figures are unrounded,
MAF rounds one. The proposed rule lands on our current behaviour, which is
exactly why it cannot be decided here. Neither side patches unilaterally.
Code anchors re-verified against the working tree this session (the ledger fix
earlier today shifted valuereport line numbers), not copied from STATE.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01MQu2xxwedckjU56byu1aUG
