Skip to content

board: E-OCR-MAKEROW-2 + -3 — makerow row-assignment/cleanup + x-height byte-parity findings#659

Merged
AdaWorldAPI merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
claude/happy-hamilton-0azlw4
Jul 7, 2026
Merged

board: E-OCR-MAKEROW-2 + -3 — makerow row-assignment/cleanup + x-height byte-parity findings#659
AdaWorldAPI merged 2 commits into
mainfrom
claude/happy-hamilton-0azlw4

Conversation

@AdaWorldAPI

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Two append-only EPIPHANIES entries for the 3E makerow waves landed in AdaWorldAPI/tesseract-rs (companion PR).

  • E-OCR-MAKEROW-2 — wave 2 (row assignment + cleanup) byte-parity 4/4, plus the transferable tie-order finding: real Tesseract's blob_x_order/row_spacing_order leave sort/nth_element tie order unspecified while add_blob expansion is order-dependent → both sides pin identical total orders (PARITY PIN doctrine for all future textord sort leaves).
  • E-OCR-MAKEROW-3 — wave 3 (x-height chain) byte-parity 4/4, and the closed ruff→port loop: the Textord:: methods that ruff feat(arigraph): 100%+ Python transcode — prompts, NARS, normalization, spatial #57 made harvestable were exactly this wave's port targets.

Docs only — the code + oracles live in tesseract-rs. lance-graph carries the findings per the board-hygiene rule (transcode findings land where the doctrine lives).

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_016b33swuXE23hKtqxsHu9p1


Generated by Claude Code

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@AdaWorldAPI, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 2 minutes

Enable usage-based reviews in Billing to review now. Otherwise, wait until the next included review is available.
You're only billed for reviews past your plan's rate limits ($0.25/file).

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: a87945fd-4e92-48f4-9311-ce15b13fa621

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 593b7b7 and eac238e.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • .claude/board/EPIPHANIES.md

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.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

@cursor

cursor Bot commented Jul 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Bugbot couldn't run - usage limit reached

Bugbot is counted against Cursor usage for this user or team, and this run hit a usage or spend limit.

A user or team admin can review and increase usage limits in the Cursor dashboard.

(requestId: serverGenReqId_1d94398e-692d-4734-b67b-e2864351acdf)

@AdaWorldAPI AdaWorldAPI merged commit 9e03dfd into main Jul 7, 2026
2 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants