docs(C39): O'Connell 1964 confirms the rule and the vigil inventory

Replaces the withdrawn Ordo claim with a real one of a different kind.
O'Connell, The Celebration of Mass (4th ed., 1964) -- a rubrics commentary
contemporary with the 1960 Code, outside the Divinum Officium ->
missalemeum -> lectio lineage, already cited here for RG 128 -- states all
three of RG 33's triggers in English, the third included, verbatim in
substance with the Latin.

The same passage confirms vigil_feast_table's membership independently:
Christmas Eve and Pentecost I class and so outside the rule; Ascension,
Assumption, John the Baptist and Peter & Paul II class; St Lawrence the
sole III-class vigil. Five entries, the same five, same class split.

It confirms the RULE and the ENTITY LIST, not the 10 days -- O'Connell
publishes no day-by-day calendar. The distinction is stated in the note
rather than blurred, since blurring it is what the withdrawn Ordo
paragraph did.

1 files changed, 7 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/data/ef/expected-divergences.sexp b/data/ef/expected-divergences.sexp
index 8078611..60c4886 100644
--- a/data/ef/expected-divergences.sexp
+++ b/data/ef/expected-divergences.sexp
@@ -98,7 +98,13 @@ Domain-wide this clause fires on 1 744 of the 3 074 246 days in 1583-9999 -- 1 1
 
 CORRECTED 2026-08-21, BEFORE THIS ENTRY WAS EVER REVIEWED: an earlier version of this note claimed the published Ordo -- the project's one witness outside the Divinum Officium -> missalemeum -> lectio lineage -- INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMS colitur here, because it omits St Lawrence's vigil on 2025-08-09 where both software engines keep it. That claim does not survive its own check and is withdrawn. The Ordo covers 2024-2027 and omits that vigil on BOTH 2025-08-09 (where this clause says omit) and 2027-08-09 (where it says keep, 10 August being a Tuesday); 2026-08-09 is a Sunday, omitted by the rule's FIRST trigger anyway, and the fixture has no row for 2024-08-09. So the Ordo never shows St Lawrence's vigil on any date it covers, and its agreement on 2025-08-09 is a coincidence of a blanket gap, not evidence of the third trigger. The Ordo has nothing to say here in either direction. Recorded rather than quietly deleted because the withdrawn claim was the reason this entry was first written up as unusually well corroborated, and a reader who saw that framing should be able to see it retracted.
 
-WHAT THIS ENTRY ACTUALLY RESTS ON, then. Two things, neither of them a second witness. FIRST, the primary text, which admits no interpretive latitude: RG 33 joins three triggers with 'vel'/'aut' and the third is a plain conditional on the feast's own fate. SECOND -- and this is the substantive point -- lectio does not DISAGREE with the clause, it never evaluates it. 'RG 33' appears nowhere in lectio's production code, only in one test file's comments; its Sunday behaviour is emergent from ordinary rank comparison (a II-class Sunday outranks a III-class vigil), not from a transcribed rule. The third trigger cannot emerge that way at all, because it turns on what is observed the day AFTER, and a per-day precedence contest has no access to it. That is exactly why implementing it in colitur required a whole-year pass and a new field on Precedence.rules rather than a branch in disposition. So the divergence is architectural, not exegetical: on these 10 days lectio is not asserting that the vigil survives, it is producing the only answer its shape can produce. missalemeum and Divinum Officium inherit the same limit by lineage.
+INDEPENDENTLY CONFIRMED AT THE RULE LEVEL (2026-08-21), after the Ordo claim above was withdrawn and the question 'can these be checked against an outside source' was put again. O'Connell, The Celebration of Mass (4th ed., 1964), docs/research/oconnell/oconnell-1964.txt:2626-2629 -- a published rubrics commentary contemporary with the 1960 Code, outside the Divinum Officium -> missalemeum -> lectio lineage and independent of the Missal scans, already cited in this project for RG 128: 'A vigil of II or III class is entirely omitted if it falls on any Sunday, or on a feast of I class, OR IF THE FEAST WHICH IT PRECEDES IS TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER DATE OR HAPPENS TO BE REDUCED TO A COMMEMORATION.' That is RG 33's three triggers in English, the third included, from a source that is neither the primary text this engine transcribes nor any engine derived from it.
+
+The same passage independently confirms vigil_feast_table's exact membership, which is the other thing no type can check: I class are Christmas Eve and Pentecost ('these take precedence of all feasts and admit no commemoration' -- RG 30, and why they are excluded from the table); II class are 'the eves of the feasts of the Ascension, the Assumption, the birthday of St. John Baptist (June 24), and SS. Peter and Paul (June 29)'; and 'there is only one vigil of III class, ie., the eve of the feast of St. Laurence (August 10)'. Five vigils, the same five, with the same class split the table encodes.
+
+WHAT IT DOES NOT DO is witness the 10 DAYS. O'Connell states the rule; he publishes no day-by-day calendar, so the individual dates rest on the rule plus colitur's own occurrence machinery. The distinction is kept deliberately, because collapsing it is exactly the error the withdrawn Ordo paragraph above made.
+
+WHAT THIS ENTRY ALSO RESTS ON. Two things, neither of them a day-level witness. FIRST, the primary text, which admits no interpretive latitude: RG 33 joins three triggers with 'vel'/'aut' and the third is a plain conditional on the feast's own fate. SECOND -- and this is the substantive point -- lectio does not DISAGREE with the clause, it never evaluates it. 'RG 33' appears nowhere in lectio's production code, only in one test file's comments; its Sunday behaviour is emergent from ordinary rank comparison (a II-class Sunday outranks a III-class vigil), not from a transcribed rule. The third trigger cannot emerge that way at all, because it turns on what is observed the day AFTER, and a per-day precedence contest has no access to it. That is exactly why implementing it in colitur required a whole-year pass and a new field on Precedence.rules rather than a branch in disposition. So the divergence is architectural, not exegetical: on these 10 days lectio is not asserting that the vigil survives, it is producing the only answer its shape can produce. missalemeum and Divinum Officium inherit the same limit by lineage.
 
 Gated on lectio's own slug being one of the three vigils this clause can reach and colitur's not being a vigil -- identity on both sides, not a diff-set shape. The Assumption's and the Ascension's vigils are absent from that list because their I-class feasts always keep their own day: 0 occurrences across the whole domain, measured rather than assumed.")
   (expected_rows 10))