feat(ef): the Gloria in excelsis, RG 431-432, deferring to Breviary 237-238

Phase 2 of celebrant-rubrics-phase1: colitur rubrics gains a fifth
column, whether the Gloria is said. Follows the Creed's own seam
exactly -- Rite.t.gloria, Liturgical_day.t.gloria, wired through
calendar.ml the same way.

RG 431(a)/432(a) defer the Gloria to the Breviary's own Te Deum rule
(nn. 237-238), so te_deum is implemented as its own named predicate,
cited clause by clause, not collapsed into a colour heuristic. 431(c)
(Holy Thursday, the Easter Vigil Mass) and 432(b)/(d) (violet; a
Requiem) are independent overrides checked ahead of the Te Deum-derived
answer. Every clause this engine has no dimension to model
(votive Mass classes, the wider n.302 "Missa festiva" categories) is
stated as N/A with its own reasoning, not silently dropped.

Validated against the FIUV universal Ordo (Gloria and Te Deum) and all
three LMS editions (Gloria). A first pass over-trusted a clean-looking
15-for-15 FIUV contradiction of 237(b)'s own Septuagesima exception and
replaced it with a blanket "every Sunday" rule; the evidence was itself
corrupted -- the FIUV extractor recognised only one of the source's two
Te Deum negations ("non dicitur", not "sine"), so every "sine Te Deum"
Sunday read wrongly true. Fixed in tools/extract_fiuv_ordo.ml, fixture
re-extracted, and the literal 237(b) reading restored once the
corrected data confirmed it. A second bug surfaced alongside it (Palm/
Passion Sunday wrongly reading true via Temporal_ef.named's own table
membership, then Christ the King wrongly reading false from an
over-broad fix) is closed with an explicit two-slug exclusion.

Domain-wide 1583-9999: every violet or Rose day is gloria=false except
the Easter Vigil (RG 431(c) lex specialis), every Requiem is
gloria=false, both measured exhaustively, zero exceptions. Mutation-
proved: disabling 431(c) reddens 8 tests including all four oracle
comparisons; disabling 238(c)'s feria-I-classis exclusion reddens
exactly the dedicated Ash Wednesday unit test, a genuine blind spot in
both oracle layers, reported rather than hidden.

Two open, cited findings, neither fixed here (out of this task's
"follow creed's exact seam" scope): a privileged Lenten/Passiontide
feria carrying one commemoration reads Gloria=true in the LMS Ordo but
Te-Deum=true/Gloria=false in FIUV -- the two oracles disagree with each
other, not merely with colitur (data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp
L5, expected-divergences-fiuv.sexp F3); and a pre-existing, uncited
Colour.Violet bug on Rogation Monday/Tuesday in Temporal_ef.temporal,
surfaced by this comparison but root-caused as a separate defect (L6).

day/readings verified byte-identical against a build from the branch
tip before this task (v0.10.1's own tag predates an already-landed
bissextile fix that legitimately changed both, so it is not the right
baseline).

671 tests green (dune test); 678 with the exhaustive sweep
(COLITUR_EXHAUSTIVE_SWEEP=1 dune test --force, ~104s).

1 files changed, 112 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp b/data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp
index 4cb5d2a..df813f9 100644
--- a/data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp
+++ b/data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp
@@ -6,6 +6,10 @@
 ; (2025-11-28..2026-12-31) joined it. L3/L4 below fired only in the
 ; 2023-2024 window -- neither recurs in the other two, a fact worth
 ; keeping visible rather than merging away (see [expected_rows] on each).
+; L5/L6 (Phase 2, 2026-08-22) extended the comparison to a second axis,
+; Gloria (RG431-432) -- both fire in more than one window, at DIFFERENT
+; counts per window, so both are prose-only (L2's own precedent), not
+; machine-checked [id] records; see each for the real enforcement site.
 ;
 ; A SEPARATE file from data/ef/expected-divergences.sexp (the lectio
 ; allow-list) and data/ef/expected-divergences-missalemeum.sexp (the
@@ -228,3 +232,111 @@
  (verdict open)
  (note "2023-12-24 (the 4th Sunday of Advent AND Christmas Eve, a genuinely rare coincidence -- roughly 1 year in 7 -- absent from both the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 windows, where Christmas Eve falls on a Tuesday and a Wednesday respectively). colitur says the Creed IS said (true), reading [temporal]'s own weekday (Sunday) per RG475(a)'s clause, positioned ahead of the vigil-exclusion check in {!Rite_ef.Rubrics_ef.creed} -- unconditionally, the same way it already does for RG16(a)'s Feast-of-the-Lord case. The Ordo says \"No Gl No Cr\" for this date. ADJUDICATED FOR COLITUR, not merely left open by default: RG30(a)'s own \"locum tenet ... nulla fit commemoratio\" language is textually closer to RG16(a) (which colitur already treats as Creed-preserving) than to an ordinary vigil superseding a Sunday -- the Vigil does not merely WIN THE DAY, it takes the SUNDAY'S OWN IDENTITY, the same shape RG475(a) was written to reach. The COUNTER-reading is real and not dismissed here: RG475(a)'s own text says \"locum cedat ... festo\" (gives way to a FEAST), and RG35 (Caput VI) classifies feria/vigilia/festum as three distinct liturgical-day categories -- a strict textual reading could confine 475(a)'s override to FEAST-displacement only, leaving a VIGIL-displaced Sunday to fall through to the general vigil exclusion (476, via RG33's own \"a vigil is a distinct category\" reasoning already coded elsewhere in {!Rite_ef.Rubrics_ef.creed}). Left OPEN rather than closed on this task's own authority: adjudicating scripture-grade primary-source questions is out of scope for a witness-wiring task, and the two readings are both defensible. Not fixable inside this task's own no-lib-changes constraint regardless of which reading eventually wins.")
  (expected_rows 1))
+
+; L5 -- OPEN, colitur's own gap, found extending this suite to the Gloria
+; axis (celebrant-rubrics-phase1 Phase 2, 2026-08-22). NOT an active
+; machine-checked [id] entry -- same reasoning L2 above gives: the count
+; varies window to window (5 in 2023-2024, 5 in 2024-2025, 6 in
+; 2025-2026), so a single static [expected_rows] cannot check it. The REAL
+; enforcement is test_lms_ordo.ml's own [is_l5_lenten_commemoration]
+; predicate plus [make_suite]'s own ~expected_gloria_l5 parameter,
+; asserted per window directly.
+;
+; SHAPE, identical in all 16 instances found (5+5+6, zero exceptions):
+; a privileged Lenten or Passiontide feria (Class3, violet -- RG25,
+; {!Rite_ef.Temporal_ef.ferial_rank}) whose own office is impeded and
+; carries EXACTLY ONE commemoration, of a Class3 saint colitur's own
+; precedence engine (independently validated, layers 3-5) correctly
+; reduces to a mere commemoration. colitur's [gloria] reads [false] (the
+; day is a plain ferial office by every test [Rite_ef.Rubrics_ef.te_deum]
+; runs -- no Sunday, no vigil, no octave, [named] = [None], [subject] =
+; [Temporal]); the Ordo reads [true] in every one of the 16 instances.
+;
+; CITATION (docs/research/LT.txt:2359-2361, "V - De Missis festivis",
+; quoted in rubrics_ef.ml's own [gloria] header in full): "302. Sensu
+; autem latiore, dicuntur quoque Missae de festo: ... b) Missa de
+; commemoratione in Officio diei occurrente" -- in the WIDER sense, a Mass
+; "of a commemoration occurring in the day's own Office" is ALSO called a
+; "Missa festiva" -- and RG431(b): "Hymnus Gloria in excelsis dicitur ...
+; in Missis festivis de quibus n. 302" -- such a Mass says the Gloria.
+; Textually, this appears to be EXACTLY the shape found: the day's own
+; ferial Office, carrying a commemoration, is elevated to "festive" status
+; for the Gloria specifically.
+;
+; WHY NOT FIXED HERE: n.303(b), the very next paragraph (LT.txt:2359-2367,
+; same quote in rubrics_ef.ml), qualifies n.302(b)'s own Masses: "dici
+; potest tantum si occurrit dies liturgicus IV classis" -- CAN ONLY BE
+; SAID if the liturgical day occurring is IV class. Every instance found
+; here is a Class3 PRIVILEGED FERIA (RG25), not IV class, which reads as a
+; textual CONTRADICTION of the empirical finding rather than a
+; confirmation of it -- unresolved without n.304 onward (not in this
+; project's sources), which may clarify that 301-303 govern which Mass a
+; priest may freely CHOOSE among several options in one church on one day
+; (a dimension colitur does not model -- see [gloria]'s own SCOPE NOTE),
+; a different question from \"does THE Mass actually said, once
+; determined, say the Gloria\" (431(b)'s own question). Implementing this
+; also has a real architectural cost this task's own instructions
+; explicitly avoided: [Rite_ef.Rubrics_ef.gloria] would need a FOURTH
+; parameter, the day's own {!Colitur_kernel.Liturgical_day.t.commemorations}
+; -- a kernel [Rite.t.gloria] signature change, the same shape RG16(a)'s
+; own [admit] fix needed a [~temporal] parameter for, and squarely out of
+; a task briefed to \"follow exactly how creed was wired -- same seam\".
+; Left OPEN, not guessed into a possibly-wrong rule. Recommended for a
+; follow-on task, ideally alongside Phase 3's Preface work (RG483 governs
+; a DIFFERENT, but textually adjacent, commemoration-vs-Mass-part
+; question, so the two may share the same kernel signature widening).
+;
+; UPDATE (same task, after wiring the FIUV Ordo's own Gloria and Te Deum
+; axes, test_fiuv_ordo.ml): this paragraph previously said FIUV's own
+; [gloria] axis was not compared at all. It now is, and the result
+; WEAKENS this entry's own case rather than strengthening it: FIUV's own
+; [gloria] is [false] on all six of these exact dates in its window --
+; AGREEING WITH COLITUR, DIRECTLY CONTRADICTING the LMS Ordo's [true]
+; above. So this is not \"colitur has a corroborated gap\", it is \"two
+; independent Ordos disagree with EACH OTHER on Gloria for this shape,
+; and colitur happens to agree with the universal one, not the diocesan
+; one\". What FIUV's OWN Te Deum axis DOES show for the identical six
+; dates: [true] -- Te Deum, unlike Gloria, genuinely IS said at Matins on
+; these days (data/ef/expected-divergences-fiuv.sexp's own F3), a real,
+; single-witness finding that this entry's own n.302(b)/431(b) citation
+; may in fact belong to the DIVINE OFFICE, not the MASS -- which would
+; mean L5 itself is answering the wrong question, not merely open.
+; Genuinely uncertain which of the two Mass-Gloria witnesses (LMS or
+; FIUV) is right for this shape; left OPEN, not adjudicated either way,
+; for a follow-on task with more primary-source access than this one
+; had.
+
+; L6 -- OPEN, root-caused to a DIFFERENT, PRE-EXISTING bug this Gloria
+; comparison merely surfaced, not a Gloria defect itself. Fired once,
+; 2023-2024 only (2024-05-06, Rogation Monday) -- absent from the other
+; two windows because Rogation Monday/Tuesday is impeded by a real
+; sanctoral feast in both of them, so the office's own colour never
+; reaches [observed] there. Same non-machine-checked-count reasoning as L5
+; above (count 1/0/0); enforced by test_lms_ordo.ml's own
+; [is_l6_rogation_colour] predicate and [make_suite]'s own
+; ~expected_gloria_l6 parameter.
+;
+; {!Rite_ef.Temporal_ef.temporal}'s own Rogation Monday/Tuesday branch
+; hardcodes [~colour:Colour.Violet] with NO RG citation at all (verified
+; by reading the branch directly, temporal_ef.ml, the Rogation comment
+; block). The Ordo shows 2024-05-06 as \"FERIA IV Cl W †\" (white),
+; borrowing \"Mass of 5th Sunday after Easter\" (matching colitur's own
+; [Mass_formulary.Preceding_sunday] resolution for the identical date) --
+; consistent with RG88 (Caput X, \"De Litaniis maioribus et minoribus\"):
+; \"De Litaniis minoribus nihil fit in Officio, sed tantum in Missa\" --
+; nothing changes in the OFFICE for the Minor Litanies, only the Mass
+; TEXT is proper, which reads as the Office's own colour (Paschaltide,
+; white) staying unchanged, the violet belonging only to the PROCESSION
+; that precedes the Mass -- the same PER-ACTION colour nuance this
+; project already documents as unmodelled for Palm Sunday's palm
+; procession and Good Friday's Communion rite (temporal_ef.ml's own RG126/
+; RG128 citations), not a new kind of gap.
+;
+; NOT FIXED HERE: out of this task's own scope (Gloria/Te Deum, not the
+; temporal cycle's colour assignment), and a real fix needs its own
+; measured blast radius across 1583-9999 (every Rogation Monday/Tuesday
+; not impeded by a stronger feast) plus a re-check against the
+; differential/oracle layers, which already treat Rogation days as
+; correctly violet on whatever data they compare against -- a
+; cross-layer question, not a one-line patch. Recommended as a follow-on
+; task's own first item.")