test(prose): discovery's epic arm, to the same durability boundary#571
Open
leeovery wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
test(prose): discovery's epic arm, to the same durability boundary#571leeovery wants to merge 1 commit into
leeovery wants to merge 1 commit into
Conversation
The same empty project and the same walk as the feature case, committed as an epic instead. The two diverge at one point — confirm-trigger's routing — and everything downstream follows from it. A feature concludes there. An epic continues into Step 7, which runs the discovery gateway, and that call is what proves which arm was taken: it sits in calls_include and in the ordering chain behind manifest exists and workunit create, so a walk cannot reach it by another route. Three claims are the epic's alone and cannot pass by accident. The session log records the map as empty at a first session rather than the not-applicable a single-topic type carries. The engine sets active_session, which a feature never acquires. And the shaping conversation is carried forward rather than restarted, so no second log is authored. calls_exclude covers topic start, the discussion map and the entry skills: nothing may begin while the topics are still unnamed. Its first run is what surfaced the walker wander at Step 5, and through that the asserter's inability to say whose fault a step was. Both are fixed beneath this in the stack; the case is unchanged since, so it wants a run against them before it is trusted. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This was referenced Jul 26, 2026
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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
The same empty project and the same walk as the feature case, committed as an epic instead. The two diverge at exactly one point — confirm-trigger's routing — and everything else follows from it.
A feature concludes there. An epic continues into Step 7, which runs the discovery gateway, and that call is the proof of which arm was taken: it sits in
calls_includeand in the ordering chain behindmanifest existsandworkunit create, so a walk can't reach it by another route.Three claims belong to the epic alone and can't pass by accident:
active_session— state a feature never acquirescalls_excludecoverstopic start,discussion-mapand the entry skills: nothing may begin while topics are still unnamed.Provenance
This case's first run is what surfaced the walker wander at discovery Step 5, and through that the asserter's inability to say whose fault a step was. Both are fixed beneath this in the stack (#569, #570). The case is unchanged since that run, so it wants a run against those fixes before it's trusted — expected outcome is a clean pass with the wander gone, but that's a prediction, not a result.
Test plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Stack