Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Aug 8, 2026. It is now read-only.
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
31 changes: 31 additions & 0 deletions docs/design/amendments-2026-08-03.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1568,3 +1568,34 @@ not deliver in the one regime the document was written about.

**No reproducer.** Nothing here is measured. The claim is internal inconsistency in two
documents, checkable by reading them.

### CLOSED 2026-08-03. Fixed in `crucible-stack`, and this section missed two things

`crucible-stack` **#21**, merge `3efc36f`, on their `main`. Recorded here so §C28 does not
read as an open item: a section that says "not edited" with no outcome is exactly the stale
marker that invites a second, divergent fix, which is the trap the swap-dealer handoff hit
on 2026-08-03.

All three of the changes this section asked for landed: defined-risk protection now leads
(it was already present, offered second as the alternative), widening is demoted to a
trade-off with both sides named, and "a stop is a trigger, not a guarantee" is stated
outright.

**Two things this section got wrong by not looking hard enough at the file it was judging.**

- **It missed the §7 preamble**, which promised "stops that survive". That is the same claim
in miniature, one screen above the use case, and reading only UC-1 and UC-2 did not reach
it. Also fixed in #21. The lesson is narrow and practical: when a claim is wrong, grep the
document for the claim rather than fixing the passage you happened to be sent to.
- **It assumed the trade-off had nowhere to point.** This section said the fix would need
"both sides named" and stopped there, because it reasoned from *this* repo, where the
classification lives in `§A.10`. The equity spec already had its own: **UC-6, "Classifying
a drawdown while it is happening"**, with a two-row signature table separating a
positioning unwind (mean-reverts) from a fundamental repricing (does not). So the fix
routes the widening decision to UC-6 rather than merely naming two outcomes, which is
strictly better than what was proposed here.

**The direction of the error is worth noting.** Reasoning about a sibling document from
memory of *our* structure produced a fix proposal that was correct but thinner than the
target document could support. The measure-do-not-assume rule has an obvious extension: read
the whole of the document you are correcting, not the paragraph you were pointed at.
Loading