Merge branch 'of-litcal-readings'HEADv1.2.1main

The OF's readings had never been validated against anything but the lineage
they arrived on. Pointing a second lineage at them found ten corrupt
references on the first run.

1 files changed, 28 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/data/of/expected-divergences-litcal.sexp b/data/of/expected-divergences-litcal.sexp
index 633d2e0..a045415 100644
--- a/data/of/expected-divergences-litcal.sexp
+++ b/data/of/expected-divergences-litcal.sexp
@@ -139,6 +139,34 @@
 ; RG 112(a) does on the EF side for a narrower case. NOT fixed here (a
 ; kernel-level tie-break policy is out of this task's own scope regardless
 ; of verdict).
+;
+; UPDATE 2026-08-28: a CANDIDATE citation has since been found, and it
+; points AGAINST colitur's current answer. Tabula I.3 does not name a bare
+; category; it enumerates one in a definite order -- "Sollemnitates DOMINI,
+; beatae Mariae Virginis, et SANCTORUM in Calendario generali inscriptae".
+; The Sacred Heart is a Solemnity of the Lord; the Nativity of St John the
+; Baptist is a Solemnity of a Saint. Read as ordered, that entry puts the
+; Lord first, litcal's answer is right and colitur's alphabetical tie-break
+; is reaching a conclusion the text already settles. colitur's own EF side
+; models exactly this shape already -- RG 91 entry 14's "primum mobilia,
+; deinde fixa" is a within-entry order, and Precedence_ef.band expresses it
+; by scaling the whole table x10 so a half-row sits between its neighbours.
+; Precedence_of.band is scaled x10 too, so I.3 could carry 30/31/32 with no
+; structural change.
+;
+; The counter-argument, which is why this stays OPEN rather than becoming a
+; fix: Tabula entry 4 marks its own internal order with explicit a) b) c) d)
+; lettering, so the drafters had a way to signal ordering and used it. Entry
+; 3 is a plain "A, B, et C" list. Entry 2's own list ("Nativitas Domini,
+; Epiphania, Ascensio et Pentecostes...") cannot be an ordering at all,
+; since those days can never collide with each other -- which is evidence
+; that a list inside an entry need not imply precedence.
+;
+; What would settle it: any authoritative source treating 24 June in a
+; Sacred-Heart-collision year -- an ordo, a Notitiae reply, or a
+; conference decree. The collision is rare (Easter must be late enough to
+; put Easter+68 on 24 June) and none of the project's current witnesses
+; covers such a year. Verdict stays open; behaviour unchanged.
 ((id L6)
  (citation "precedence.ml's compare_by (Slug.compare tie-break); no Tabula/Normae text found ranking Sacred Heart above/below the Nativity of John the Baptist at equal band")
  (verdict open)