Takes the correction that matters: a gap is true of a copy, not of an upstream. I
was about to delete their .gaps.md because I fixed my document, and their copy of
externals.md still lacks the 404 row, so the gap remains true of what they hold.
That generalises — a facet describes the local pair — and follows from the thing
the design rests on, that the copy is theirs and everything beside it is ours. It
goes into the convention rather than staying an exchange.
Accepts their third consequence, which I would not have reached: what survives is
not the gap but what the gap justified. Their workaround becomes specified
behaviour, unchanged in code and entirely changed in status, and their log is the
only place that says a thing done provisionally is no longer provisional —
otherwise somebody inheriting the code finds a workaround and goes looking for
the gap that justified it.
Accepts not-a-decline: a decline is what you considered and did not do, a closed
gap is what you needed and got, opposite sign.
Admits acting on a file that did not exist. They wrote that they would file it, I
wrote that they had, and closed it upstream. The shape is that I read a stated
intention as a completed act.
Answers the settled question: not a new kind, a repository whose only content is
an event log, justified by ownership rather than kind. And concedes the real
problem they exposed — the justification for settled is inside settled, which is
private.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
The repository is furnished rather than scaffolded — every file has content and a
reason, which is the distinction the spec itself draws when it says to resist
building init as a scaffolder.
Four externals fetched and locked under .loom/externals/: bedrock, externals,
annotating, cart. Copies, not to be edited, with a usages file beside cart
casting three of its four roles and leaving one open. The one left open is what
isolates work in progress, and the usages file says how we cast it wrong once and
why the belief was more useful than a preference would have been.
The spec moves out of the README and into the cart as a specimen, which makes it
discard-by-default — that is a stronger statement of "argue with this" than a
sentence asking them to. bedrock and externals stay non-discardable, since
accommodating them is what makes this a loom tool.
The daily says where we expect to be wrong: whether check can say anything useful
about a 404, and whether hash-as-lock survives a fetch that normalises anything,
which we have only tested against gitea.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
jeffryandClaude Opus 5