Files
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5 9099ceb1af
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m27s
SAFETY-31: the grid is 42, not 90, and the wrong number was in the failure text
Review reproduced every figure in both PRs except one, and rejected on it.

⚠️ "0 of 90 GAINS x SPLITS combinations produce opposing shares" - the SUBSTANCE
is right and review re-measured it, but the DENOMINATOR is invented. sitesim.py
declares GAINS with 7 entries and SPLITS with 6: the grid is 42. 90 is not even
divisible by 7, so no reading of "GAINS x SPLITS" reaches it. It is almost
certainly TEST-20`s RUN count (84 + 6), which is a different quantity that
happened to be nearby.

⚠️ AND THE WORST COPY OF IT WAS INSIDE THE `PRECONDITION FAILED` TEXT, so the
next engineer to see this scenario go red would have been handed an
unreproducible measurement as their diagnosis - the exact defect class this
campaign exists to correct, in the failure path where it does the most harm.

Corrected in all seven places. At the failure-text site the denominator is now
`len(GAINS) * len(SPLITS)`, computed rather than typed, so it cannot drift from
the grid again - the same fix test_translations.py already took.

Also N3: a missing blank line was going to render the S3 and M19 paragraphs as
one in DECISIONS.

Re-run after the change: `inject.py two_master_circulation` PASS in 35 s, norig,
no rig lock taken. Add-on suite 26 files, all pass.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
2026-09-07 20:13:01 +02:00
..