One project's exception no longer cancels its siblings: the wave's gather
runs with return_exceptions=True and each raised project becomes a frozen
RunFailure(project_id, error, error_type) in the defaulted
PortfolioResult.failures, while every completed project keeps its full
RunResult. RunFailure is a distinct type rather than an error field on
RunResult (six required non-defaulted fields -> dummies would be fabricated
provenance); the deviation from the spec's wording is stated in both
docstrings. TaskGroup is rejected: it cancels siblings on first exception.
snapshots reaches _merge_wave unfiltered, and results are paired back to pids
by POSITION (gather resolves in argument order) so a mid-wave failure cannot
disturb store order or misattribute the failure.
Detach points measured, not asserted:
drop return_exceptions=True -> RED (both new tests)
reorder snapshots before merge -> RED (+ Session 1's determinism test)
pair results by sorted(), not position -> RED (failure misattributed)
filter failed members before merge -> GREEN, measured
The last one corrects the plan: its carried-forward requirement implied
filtering before the merge was the hazard. Filtering preserves relative order,
which is all _merge_wave consumes, so the variant is undetectable AND harmless.
The docstring now names the reorder as the detach point and records the
filter asymmetry, rather than claiming a detach point that does not exist.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015vYbqW4MppACRvPhEMDpvF
Replaces run_portfolio's sequential loop with a wave loop over _waves(ids, k):
each wave takes a per-project snapshot of the shared store, runs the wave under
one asyncio.gather in a single event loop, then crosses a merge barrier that
folds each project's NEW verdicts back in wave-submission order. Step 2's
contract goes GREEN; runs stays in project_ids order because gather resolves in
argument order, not completion order.
TWO PLAN CORRECTIONS, both found by the RED-first test rather than by reading:
1. The plan specified sorting the merged verdicts on `project_id`. Measured, that
produces a deterministic order which is the WRONG one: lexicographic gives
BRU/FV42/RV13 while the sequential pass gives FV42/RV13/BRU. It satisfies
"deterministic" while breaking "identical to concurrency=1" — and the second is
the actual contract. The merge preserves submission order instead.
2. The plan named the barrier's sort as the load-bearing seam. It is not — with
per-project snapshots the wave list is never reordered by completion, so a
sorted() there would re-sort an already-ordered list and read as a guard while
guarding nothing. The SNAPSHOT is the half that carries the load. Rather than
ship a decorative sort, both halves were measured (scratchpad-restore, never
git checkout):
detach _wave_snapshot -> RED (store lands in completion order)
detach merge ordering -> RED (reversed wave order diverges)
Both restored byte-identical (sha 42b01d46).
The snapshot carries `retriever` across deliberately: dropping it would silently
downgrade a caller-owned store's S3.1 semantic-retrieval opt-in mid-pass.
Also strengthens the scripted-client consolidation guard, which the probe broke by
being a legitimate third _inner_get_response def-site. It pinned a literal count
of 2 — the wrong shape: it failed on any new legitimate subclass while still
passing if someone pasted a duplicated body into an already-listed file. It now
pins the property (registered sites, scripted-lineage overrides must delegate via
super(), foreign-lineage doubles must genuinely be foreign). Verified load-bearing:
removing both delegation sites turns it RED.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LQapztREtC2mkr5oU811pr
Commits the determinism contract RED, mirroring S3.1 (b05747a RED -> 6618f67
GREEN). The wave executor does not exist yet, so `concurrency=3` still runs the
sequential path — and the test says so precisely rather than passing vacuously:
max in-flight was 1: concurrency=3 never overlapped two projects
call sequence=[FV42 x4, RV13 x4, BRU x4]
That blocked call sequence is the proof the probe works. A test that had gone
GREEN here would have been asserting something the sequential path already
satisfies — the Spike B call-counter tautology repeating — and the plan's
escalation rule would have stopped execution.
The probe returns a coroutine yielding N times via asyncio.sleep(0) (a pure
scheduler yield, no wall clock) before delegating to the canonical body, with N
read from the prompt blob since client_factory's argument is the ROLE, not the
project id. The stream path is delegated untouched, and the subclass chain is
preserved so BudgetMiddleware still engages.
Three self-checks make it non-vacuous by construction: max-in-flight > 1,
completion order != submission order, and >= 3 distinct verdict ids. Self-check
1 asserts non-identity rather than an exact reversal — asyncio.sleep(0) is a
scheduler yield, not an ordering primitive, so demanding a specific permutation
would only add a way to fail for a reason that is not the contract.
The docstring also corrects what the repetitions guard: NOT hash-seed
nondeterminism (PYTHONHASHSEED is fixed per interpreter, so every in-process rep
shares one seed), but scheduler nondeterminism under real concurrency.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LQapztREtC2mkr5oU811pr
Add keyword-only `concurrency: int = 1` to `run_portfolio`, a module-level
`_waves` partitioner, and a fail-fast on k < 1 that precedes any project load.
The execution loop is deliberately NOT changed here. At the default k=1 every
wave holds a single project, so the wave partition reproduces the existing
`for pid in ids` order by construction — the parameter is inert until Step 3
wires the executor. The 5 tests pin exactly that: order preservation across
every k, nothing dropped or duplicated, and the k<1 raise.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LQapztREtC2mkr5oU811pr
