Repository navigation
docs(proposals): mathesis re-anchoring plan and research programme - #49
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Measured at main 8ee6354: the golden path tests template stubs only, four checks fail outside CI, the deed and the contracts describe the template, and 17 open pull requests conflict. Propose one identity (atlas, theory, applied, with an evidence spine), a target structure, a bridge centre mechanism and staged work orders. Nothing is changed besides this document. Each change needs a ruling. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0136P7ZnDRsCLfZcFcEzvPcM
Join the owner's written directions into one programme anchored here: the algebra of status, bridges between systems, theorem to code, evidence for decisions, and a propose-and-dispose horizon. Each statement is pre-registered with a falsifier. Each experiment has a pass condition. The survey appendix quotes 52 repositories at fixed commits. Nothing is proved or changed by this document. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0136P7ZnDRsCLfZcFcEzvPcM
The owner ruled through the selector on 2026-11-10: identity (three shelves, one spine), private names (counts only, history kept), template material (declare capabilities, remove vestigial modules), paths (consolidate under docs/atlas), open pull requests (session triages, owner approves), bridge centre (lock with slices), and the token theory (chain with the kernel import, provisional on X-PF1). Say why the history is not rewritten. Say what experiment X-PF1 can change: a seven-value candidate, its strict morphism onto the chain, three outcomes, and what stays true in each one. Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.2 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0136P7ZnDRsCLfZcFcEzvPcM
|
hyperpolymath
marked this pull request as ready for review
November 10, 2026 16:37
Codex Review Summary: ❌ FailedThis comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.
ℹ️ About Codex in GitHubYour team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you
Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings. |
|
You have reached your Codex usage limits for code reviews. You can see your limits in the Codex usage dashboard. |
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed.
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This pull request adds two proposal documents. It changes no gate, schema, deed clause or data file.
docs/proposals/mathesis-re-anchoring.adoc: what Mathesis is today (measured onmainat8ee6354), what it could be, a proposed identity, a target structure, a bridge centre mechanism, and staged work orders for a later implementation session.docs/proposals/mathesis-research-programme.adoc: a research programme that joins the owner's written directions, with pre-registered statements, experiments with pass conditions, and a survey of 52 repositories at fixed commits.The owner ruled on twelve decisions through the selector on 2026-11-10. Both documents record the rulings.
Plan (each of its eight decisions is ruled):
docs/atlas/.Programme (four of its five decisions are ruled, R-5 is open):
resource-algebrakernel.januskeyis the first slice from theorem to code.Changes
docs/proposals/mathesis-re-anchoring.adoc.docs/proposals/mathesis-research-programme.adoc.Main findings of the assessment (each has its command or file in the plan):
just test && just quality) checks template stubs only, and no workflow runs it.just catalogue-check,just validate-claude-md,just validate-coapt,just validate-ai-install.main.readProofReceipt.RSR Quality Checklist
Required
just testor equivalent). Not run to completion: the session had no Idris2 and no Zig. This pull request changes documents only.unsafeblocks without// SAFETY:commentsAdmittedandsorryoccur in prose that describes a gate gap..envfiles includedAs Applicable
(status)/(maturity)updated. Not changed on purpose: the plan gives the change as work order 3.1.docs/status/ROADMAP.adocupdated. Not changed on purpose: work order 3.4.CHANGELOGor release notes updated. Not changed.Testing
Run locally from a clean tree, with Just 1.56.0, Nickel 1.18.0, Bun 1.4.4 and asciidoctor 2.0.26:
bash scripts/check-adoc-renders.sh .: PASS, all 183 tracked.adocfiles render clean.asciidoctor -v --failure-level INFOon both new files: no warning, no broken cross reference.just validate-repo-map: up to date.bash scripts/check-root-shape.sh .: PASS.bash scripts/check-no-md-in-docs.sh .: PASS.bash scripts/check-no-placeholders.sh: PASS.bash scripts/check-invisible-characters.sh: no finding.The checks that fail on
main(listed above) still fail on this branch. This pull request does not repair them. The plan gives the repair as stage 1.Limits: no proof was rechecked. The survey quotes each repository's own claims. One survey reader (proof infrastructure) stopped at a usage limit, and the programme says which repositories were not surveyed.
Screenshots
Not applicable.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
https://claude.ai/code/session_0136P7ZnDRsCLfZcFcEzvPcM