diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | lib/rites/rite_ef/precedence_ef.ml | 204 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | lib/rites/rite_ef/temporal_ef.ml | 7 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | test/test_precedence_ef.ml | 96 |
3 files changed, 204 insertions, 103 deletions
diff --git a/lib/rites/rite_ef/precedence_ef.ml b/lib/rites/rite_ef/precedence_ef.ml index fd83383..88f1a54 100644 --- a/lib/rites/rite_ef/precedence_ef.ml +++ b/lib/rites/rite_ef/precedence_ef.ml @@ -380,22 +380,46 @@ let privilege_of (c : Vocab_ef.rank Precedence.candidate) : Precedence.privilege (* (c) register line 375: "of days within the Octave of the Nativity". *) else if is_temporal && String.starts_with ~prefix:nativity_octave_prefix slug then Precedence.Privileged - (* (d) register line 375-376: "of September Ember days" -- deliberately - ONLY the September set: RG 109 does not list the Advent or Lent Ember - sets (also II class, RG 91 entry 18), so those must fall through to - "ordinary", not be caught here or at (e) below. *) + (* (d) register line 375-376: "of September Ember days" -- named on its + own because September falls entirely outside (e)'s three seasons + (Advent/Lent/Passiontide) under ANY reading, not because it needs + excluding FROM (e) the way review round 1's F1/F2 finding corrected + the Advent/Lent Ember sets below to no longer need. *) else if is_temporal && String.starts_with ~prefix:september_ember_prefix slug then Precedence.Privileged (* (e) register line 376: "of ferias of Advent, Lent and Passiontide" -- - [not (is_ember_18 slug)] is required, not redundant with (d): the - Advent and Lent Ember prefixes ("ef-advent-ember-", "ef-lent-ember-") - also start with this branch's own [alp_feria_prefixes] entries - ("ef-advent-", "ef-lent-"), and RG 109 does not privilege them (see (d) - above) -- without this exclusion they would wrongly match here. *) - else if is_temporal - && (not (is_ember_18 slug)) - && List.exists (fun p -> String.starts_with ~prefix:p slug) alp_feria_prefixes - then Precedence.Privileged + CORRECTED, fix round 1 (F1/F2): this branch previously excluded the + Advent and Lent Ember sets via [not (is_ember_18 slug)], reading RG + 109(e)'s bare "feriis Adventus, Quadragesimae" as tacitly narrower than + the ordinary ferias of those seasons, on the theory that (d)'s separate + September carve-out implied Ember days needed excluding from (e) too. + That reading does not survive comparing (e)'s text against RG 91's own + TABLE entries for the same seasons (register §4, "Ferias of Lent and + Passiontide... EXCEPTIS feriis Quatuor Temporum" at entry 22; "Ferias + of Advent... EXCEPTIS feriis Quatuor Temporum" at entry 25): the table + needs an explicit "exceptis" to keep Ember days from being double- + listed at both their own entry 18 AND entries 22/25 -- and an explicit + exception is only necessary because, ABSENT one, "feriae Adventus"/ + "feriae Quadragesimae" already DO include their Ember sub-days by + default (an unnecessary exception is not how a rubrical text is + drafted). RG 109(e) carries no such "exceptis" clause, so its bare + "feriis Adventus, Quadragesimae" is read at that same default, + INCLUSIVE scope: the Advent and Lent Ember ferias ARE "ferias of + Advent"/"of Lent" in RG 109(e)'s sense, hence privileged, not merely + ordinary. (d)'s own separate existence is unaffected by this reading + either way -- September Ember days sit in "time after Pentecost", + never within Advent/Lent/Passiontide under any reading, so (d) remains + necessary regardless; it is not evidence for excluding Advent/Lent + Ember from (e), only for including September at all.) Consequently + [is_ember_18] is no longer tested here -- an Advent/Lent Ember slug + matches this branch exactly like an ordinary Advent/Lent feria slug + does, via the same [alp_feria_prefixes] prefix test; only a September + Ember slug is structurally excluded, because "ef-september-ember-*" + never starts with any of [alp_feria_prefixes] ("ef-advent-"/"ef-lent-"/ + "ef-passiontide-") in the first place -- (d) above already privileges + it under its own name. *) + else if is_temporal && List.exists (fun p -> String.starts_with ~prefix:p slug) alp_feria_prefixes then + Precedence.Privileged (* (f) register line 376-377: "of the Major Rogations, in Mass" -- the Major Litanies (25 April, RG 80) are not yet computed anywhere in this codebase (temporal_ef.ml's own comment on [temporal]'s Rogation branch: @@ -469,73 +493,102 @@ let disposition ~(winner : Vocab_ef.rank Precedence.candidate) else if is_temporal && (not (is_vigil (Slug.to_string cel.Celebration.slug))) - && (match privilege_of loser with Precedence.Ordinary -> true | Precedence.Privileged -> false) + && cel.Celebration.rank = Class4 then - (* Task 16, primary-source-verified (RG 93, 95, 109, 113): an ordinary, - NON-privileged TEMPORAL-cycle office has no standing to be - commemorated at all when impeded -- it is simply omitted, not the - "commemorated or omitted, per rubric" residual RG 95 leaves open for - everything else. Three primary texts read together settle this: + (* CORRECTED, fix round 1 (F1/F2 -- both real, the second the direct + cause of the first): the branch this replaces gated on + [privilege_of loser = Ordinary], justified by treating RG 109 as an + "exhaustive, closed list of the only temporal-origin circumstances + that ever generate a commemoration". That justification does not + survive reading RG 109 itself: it is headed "Commemorationes + PRIVILEGIATAE sunt commemorationes" and closes "Omnes aliae + commemorationes sunt commemorationes ORDINARIAE" -- it sorts + commemorations that ALREADY exist into two HONOUR classes + (privileged vs ordinary, RG 108's differing liturgical hours), and + says nothing about which offices have the RIGHT to be commemorated + in the first place. Testing [privilege_of = Ordinary] as an + ELIGIBILITY gate therefore happened to reach the right answer for + IV-class ferias (they are never commemorated, but for a reason + RG 109 does not state) and the WRONG answer for II- and III-class + ferias impeded during a season RG 109(e) does not privilege by name + (Advent 17-23 Dec's own ordinary-non-Ember ferias were fine, already + matching (e)'s slug prefix; the Advent and Lent EMBER ferias were + not, since the pre-fix (e) excluded them -- see [privilege_of]'s own + fix-round-1 comment above, which independently corrects THAT half + too). Confirmed wrong by direct reproduction (fix-round-1 review): + 1900-12-21 (an Advent Ember Friday, RG 91 entry 18, II class) lost + its own commemoration entirely under the pre-fix code, while an + ORDINARY (non-Ember, lower-solemnity) Advent feria the same week + kept its commemoration -- backwards on any reading. - - RG 95: "Alia festa, ab Officio gradus superioris accidentaliter - impedita, AUT COMMEMORANTUR AUT, eo anno, PENITUS OMITTUNTUR, IUXTA - RUBRICAS" -- impeded offices are "either commemorated or, that - year, entirely omitted, ACCORDING TO THE RUBRICS" -- i.e. some - OTHER rule decides which fate applies; RG 95 itself does not grant - a commemoration to everything impeded. - - RG 109 gives that other rule for the temporal cycle: an EXHAUSTIVE, - closed six-item list of the only temporal-origin circumstances that - ever generate a commemoration -- (a) of a Sunday; (b) of a I-class - day; (c) of days within the Nativity Octave; (d) of the September - Ember days; (e) of Advent/Lent/Passiontide ferias; (f) of the Major - Rogations. [privilege_of] above already implements exactly this - list (its own six branches, each cited to its own RG 109 letter); - its terminal "[else Precedence.Ordinary]" is what a TEMPORAL-origin - candidate falls through to when it matches NONE of (a)-(f) -- an - ordinary green-season feria of Time after Epiphany/Pentecost/ - Easter, a plain (non-Ember) Advent/Lent weekday already caught by - (e), or a Minor Rogation day (RG 87 -- deliberately NOT named by - RG 109(f), see [privilege_of]'s own comment on that letter). - - RG 113: "Commemoratio de Tempore fit primo loco" -- the - commemoration OF THE TEMPORAL DAY is made FIRST [in the list, when - one is due] -- presupposes RG 109 already answered whether one is - due; it does not itself create a right for every impeded feria. + The actual rule is Caput IV, "De feriis" (RG 21-27), which the + original Task 16 pass never opened -- a FERIAL-CLASS-keyed rule, + entirely separate from RG 109's HONOUR-class one: + - RG 23 (I-class ferias -- Ash Wednesday, Holy Week): "nullam + admittunt commemorationem, nisi unam privilegiatam" -- admit no + commemoration except one privileged one. Never actually reaches + this function as a loser (these ferias structurally always + outrank anything that could coincide with their dates -- {!band} + entries 2/7, see that function's own file comment and the Task 11 + Easter-window invariant), so this clause has no live witness, the + same as before. + - RG 24 (II-class ferias -- Advent 17-23 Dec, the Advent/Lent/ + September Ember ferias, RG 91 entry 18): "si vero impediuntur, + COMMEMORARI DEBENT" -- if indeed impeded, they MUST be + commemorated. Not optional, not conditioned on RG 109's list. + - RG 25 (III-class ferias -- ordinary Lent/Passiontide ferias, RG 91 + entry 22; ordinary Advent ferias to 16 Dec, entry 25): "Hae + feriae, si impediuntur, commemorari debent" -- same mandate. + - RG 26: "Omnes feriae, numeris 23-25 non nominatae, sunt feriae IV + classis; quae NUNQUAM COMMEMORANTUR" -- every feria not named in + 23-25 is IV class, and IV-class ferias are NEVER commemorated. + This is [ferial_rank]'s own unqualified IV-class catch-all + (temporal_ef.ml), covering the ordinary green-season ferias of + Time after Epiphany/Pentecost, Septuagesima, Paschaltide outside + its privileged octave, and the Minor Rogation days (RG 87/88 -- + they change nothing in the Office, so they take their season's + plain ferial class, which for Paschaltide-adjacent dates is + IV, not a special one). - So testing [privilege_of loser = Ordinary] here, for a TEMPORAL-origin - loser specifically, is not a second, parallel "is this commemorable" - predicate that could drift from RG 109's own list -- it IS RG 109's - list, already computed by [privilege_of] for the commemoration this - branch is about to deny. SANCTORAL losers are entirely unaffected - (the [is_temporal] guard): RG 111(c)/(d) admit an "ordinary" - commemoration of a losing SAINT freely, with no such closed-list - gate -- this omission is specific to the temporal cycle's own - ferial/Sunday-tail offices, never to a saint. + So this branch is now gated directly on RG 26's own condition + ([rank = Class4]), which is the ONLY ferial class RG 21-27 excludes + from commemoration -- Class1 is structurally unreachable here (RG + 23, above); Class2 and Class3 both fall through to the final + [Commemorate] branch below (RG 24/25's mandate), tagged with + whatever HONOUR class [privilege_of] separately computes for them + under RG 109 -- a question this branch no longer conflates with + eligibility. SANCTORAL losers are entirely unaffected (the + [is_temporal] guard): Caput IV governs FERIAE, RG 21's own opening + definition ("Nomine feriae intelleguntur singuli dies hebdomadae, + praeter dominicam"), never a saint's day; RG 111(c)/(d) admit an + "ordinary" commemoration of a losing SAINT freely, with no such + class-keyed gate. Empirically confirmed against the missalemeum oracle (Task 16, 2026-2027, both years): every one of ~190 days where a saint's feast - impedes an ordinary (non-privileged) temporal feria shows ZERO - commemorations in the oracle, including the exact shape this fixes - (e.g. "St. Marcellus I" impeding the plain "Friday after Epiphany", - 6/730 identical instances of the pattern per week of ordinary time) - -- and the SAME fix, for the same reason, independently corrects the - Minor Rogation days (RG 87) losing to a saint (9/730 days), which - [privilege_of]'s own (f) comment already flags as NOT RG 109(f). + impedes an ordinary (IV-class, non-privileged) temporal feria shows + ZERO commemorations in the oracle (e.g. "St. Marcellus I" impeding + the plain "Friday after Epiphany"), and the SAME rank-4 gate, + independently, correctly still omits the Minor Rogation days (RG 87) + losing to a saint -- both consequences of RG 26 alone now, not of a + reading of RG 109 that RG 109's own text does not support. - [is_vigil] is EXCLUDED from this branch deliberately: a II/III-class - vigil is temporal-origin too (when it is the Ascension/Pentecost- - adjacent case {!of_temporal} produces) and [privilege_of] rightly - calls it [Ordinary] (a vigil is none of RG 109(a)-(f)), but vigils - are NOT governed by RG 109 at all -- they carry their OWN, separate, - explicit commemoration mandate: RG 31 (II class) "Hae vigiliae - praeferuntur diebus liturgicis III et IV classis; ET, SI - IMPEDIUNTUR, COMMEMORANTUR, iuxta rubricas" and RG 32 (III class, St - Lawrence) "si impeditur, COMMEMORATUR, iuxta rubricas" -- "if - impeded, ARE/IS commemorated". So a vigil impeded WITHOUT triggering - RG 33's full omission (the [is_omissible_vigil] branch above, e.g. - impeded by an ordinary sanctoral feast that is neither a Sunday nor - I class) must still fall through to the final [Commemorate] branch - below, exactly like a sanctoral loser -- RG 31/32's own text, not - RG 109's closed list, is what governs it. *) + [is_vigil] is EXCLUDED from this branch for the same reason as + before, restated under the corrected citation: a II/III-class vigil + is temporal-origin too (the Ascension/Pentecost-adjacent case + {!of_temporal} produces) and typically Class2, so it would already + fall through this branch's [rank = Class4] test harmlessly on its + own -- RG 91 has no IV-class vigil at all (this file's own entry-27/ + 28 comments), so [is_vigil && rank = Class4] should never occur on + real data. Kept as an explicit, defensive guard (not load-bearing + for real data, but total over every candidate {!Precedence.resolve} + or {!Calendar} can construct, including shapes RG 91's table itself + does not describe) rather than relying on that absence silently: a + vigil, per RG 31 (II class, "si impediuntur, commemorantur") / RG 32 + (III class, "si impeditur, commemoratur"), is ALWAYS commemorated + once RG 33 does not omit it outright, regardless of ferial class -- + a rule Caput IV does not speak to at all (vigils are Caput V, RG + 28-34, not "feriae"). *) Precedence.Omit else (* RG 95's other branch: "aut commemorantur aut penitus omittuntur" -- @@ -543,8 +596,9 @@ let disposition ~(winner : Vocab_ef.rank Precedence.candidate) below I class (RG 111(c)/(d)'s "ordinary" commemoration, no closed list the way the temporal branch above has), AND by an impeded I-class Sunday (excluded from the [Transfer] branch above, and from - the temporal-Ordinary [Omit] branch above because [privilege_of]'s - (a) makes a Sunday loser [Privileged], never [Ordinary]): RG 109(a) + the temporal Class4 [Omit] branch above because a Sunday is never + IV class -- RG 11-12/91 entry 6/15 make every Sunday I or II class, + never a "feria" at all in Caput IV's own sense, RG 21): RG 109(a) (register line 374) lists "of a Sunday" as a privileged commemoration category, which presupposes an impeded Sunday stays put rather than moving to another day the way a feast does -- [privilege_of] tags it diff --git a/lib/rites/rite_ef/temporal_ef.ml b/lib/rites/rite_ef/temporal_ef.ml index b39da79..1b3d219 100644 --- a/lib/rites/rite_ef/temporal_ef.ml +++ b/lib/rites/rite_ef/temporal_ef.ml @@ -426,6 +426,13 @@ let temporal d = §3b's own RG126 note on the not-yet-modelled per-action nuance), so this is a clean whole-day colour fact, not a per-action one the day/colour model cannot express. + RG 122, fix round 1 (F9), states the same fact + affirmatively rather than as an exception to RG 128's + violet: "Demum adhibetur color albus, feria V + Hebdomadae sanctae, in Missa Chrismatis et in Missa in + Cena Domini" -- white is used, finally [among the + White section's own list], on Thursday of Holy Week, + in the Mass of Chrism and in the Mass in Cena Domini. Task 16, found via the missalemeum oracle comparison: every other Triduum day's oracle colour SET includes violet as one option (Good Friday "bv", Holy Saturday diff --git a/test/test_precedence_ef.ml b/test/test_precedence_ef.ml index 2f08864..9bd9b7f 100644 --- a/test/test_precedence_ef.ml +++ b/test/test_precedence_ef.ml @@ -523,9 +523,13 @@ let privilege_cases = [Temporal_ef]'s own third-Sunday-of-September rule: first Sunday of September 2026 is the 6th, +14 days = 20th, +3 = 23rd), sourced from [Temporal_ef.temporal] itself, Class2. Not a Sunday, not Class1, not - within the Nativity octave, not an Advent/Lent Ember day (a DIFFERENT - Ember set, deliberately excluded by (d) -- see the negative row - below), not a plain Advent/Lent/Passiontide feria slug either. *) + within the Nativity octave, not a plain Advent/Lent/Passiontide feria + slug either -- and, unlike the Advent/Lent Ember rows below, its own + slug ("ef-september-ember-wed") never starts with any of (e)'s own + [alp_feria_prefixes] ("ef-advent-"/"ef-lent-"/"ef-passiontide-"), so + (d) is this candidate's ONLY route to [Privileged] -- a genuine, + still-necessary distinction from (e), unlike the Advent/Lent Ember + case below (fix round 1). *) ( "(d) a September Ember day is privileged", cand "ef-nativity", of_temporal (mk 2026 9 23), @@ -542,36 +546,49 @@ let privilege_cases = cand "ef-nativity", of_temporal (off (-41)), "Commemorate(Privileged)" ); - (* Negative, RG 109(d) vs (e)'s own boundary: the Advent and Lent Ember - sets are ALSO II-class ferias of Advent/Lent by RG 91 (entry 18), and - their slugs ("ef-advent-ember-*", "ef-lent-ember-*") share (e)'s own - season prefixes -- but RG 109 privileges ONLY the September set (d), - leaving these two ordinary. 16 Dec 2026 is the Advent Ember Wednesday - (independently derived: Advent I 2026 is 29 Nov, +14 days = 13 Dec, - +3 = 16 Dec); the Lent Ember Wednesday is the same date [off (-39)] - already used by the entry-18 [band] row above. Both sourced from - [Temporal_ef.temporal]. If [privilege_of] relied on the season prefix - alone without excluding Ember slugs, both would wrongly come back - [Privileged] -- the exact trap this pair of rows guards against. + (* CHANGED, fix round 1 (F1/F2/F6): these two rows used to be titled + "boundary: ... is NOT privileged (only September is, RG109(d))" and + expected [Omit] (a Task-16-pass reading that treated RG 109(e)'s bare + "feriis Adventus, Quadragesimae" as tacitly excluding the Advent and + Lent Ember sub-days, by analogy with (d)'s own separate, explicit + September carve-out). Review round 1 (F1) reproduced the real + consequence directly -- 1900-12-21, an Advent Ember Friday, lost its + own commemoration entirely, while an ordinary (lower-solemnity, + non-Ember) Advent feria the same week kept its commemoration -- + backwards on any reading, and traced it to this exact + misclassification (F2). - CHANGED, Task 16: these used to expect [Commemorate(Ordinary)] -- - "not privileged" originally meant "commemorated, but without RG 109's - higher liturgical honours". Now that a TEMPORAL-origin [Ordinary] - loser is Task 16's own [Omit] branch (see precedence_ef.ml), "not - privileged" for a temporal candidate means "not commemorable at all" - -- a sharper, more direct assertion of the same underlying - [privilege_of] classification, via the one vantage point available - on that private function. *) - ( "boundary: an Advent Ember day is NOT privileged (only September is, \ - RG109(d)) -- and being temporal+ordinary, TASK16 omits it entirely", + Corrected reading (precedence_ef.ml's own [privilege_of], (e) + branch, carries the full argument): RG 91's TABLE needs an explicit + "exceptis feriis Quatuor Temporum" at its own entries 22 and 25 to + keep Ember days from being double-listed against their own entry 18 + -- an exception that would be unnecessary drafting if "feriae + Adventus"/"feriae Quadragesimae" did not ALREADY include their Ember + sub-days by default. RG 109(e) carries no such "exceptis" clause, so + its bare text is read at that same default, INCLUSIVE scope: the + Advent and Lent Ember ferias ARE privileged under (e), not merely + commemorable-but-ordinary. (d)'s own separate existence survives + this reading intact -- September Ember days sit outside Advent/Lent/ + Passiontide under ANY reading, so (d) remains the ONLY way they + reach [Privileged], the point the row immediately above this one + makes explicit. + + 16 Dec 2026 is the Advent Ember Wednesday (independently derived: + Advent I 2026 is 29 Nov, +14 days = 13 Dec, +3 = 16 Dec); the Lent + Ember Wednesday is the same date [off (-39)] already used by the + entry-18 [band] row above. Both sourced from [Temporal_ef.temporal], + not hand-typed, for the same coupling-safety reason every + [of_temporal] row in this file uses it. *) + ( "(e), corrected fix round 1: an Advent Ember day is ALSO privileged, \ + not excluded from (e)", cand "ef-nativity", of_temporal (mk 2026 12 16), - "Omit" ); - ( "boundary: a Lent Ember day is NOT privileged (only September is, \ - RG109(d)) -- and being temporal+ordinary, TASK16 omits it entirely", + "Commemorate(Privileged)" ); + ( "(e), corrected fix round 1: a Lent Ember day is ALSO privileged, \ + not excluded from (e)", cand "ef-nativity", of_temporal (off (-39)), - "Omit" ); + "Commemorate(Privileged)" ); (* Negative, RG 109(f)'s own boundary: the Minor Litanies/Rogations (Monday/Tuesday before Ascension, RG 87 -- [Temporal_ef.temporal] DOES compute these, unlike the Major Litanies RG 109(f) actually @@ -623,6 +640,17 @@ let privileged_hi = cand ~rank:V.Class2 "ef-privileged-hi" thing under test, not merely how many. *) let ordinary_lowest = cand ~rank:V.Class4 "ef-ordinary-lowest" +(* Class3, tagged [Ordinary] -- fix round 1, F7: the RG 111(b) rank-floor + witness [admit_cases] was missing. [ordinary_hi] above is already Class2, + so every existing II-class-Sunday row here passes whether or not + [admit]'s "de festo II classis" filter is even present -- reverting that + filter would only redden [test_oracle.ml], not this file, which is + exactly the coverage gap the review round found. This candidate is the + ONLY thing due on the Sunday row below, so a version of [admit] without + the rank floor would (wrongly) admit it on pure "best available" + dignity, same as it would have admitted [ordinary_hi]. *) +let ordinary_class3 = cand ~rank:V.Class3 "ef-ordinary-class3" + let observed_class1 = cand "ef-nativity" (* Class1 by [cand]'s own default. *) let observed_class2_sunday = an_ordinary_sunday (* Class2, slug carries "-sunday". *) let observed_class2_other = cand ~rank:V.Class2 "ef-other-class2-day" (* Class2, no "-sunday". *) @@ -658,6 +686,18 @@ let admit_cases = observed_class2_sunday, [ (ordinary_hi, P.Ordinary); (privileged_lo, P.Privileged) ], [ "ef-privileged-lo" ] ); + (* RG 111(b)'s own rank floor ("scilicet DE FESTO II CLASSIS"), fix + round 1 F7: a Class3 ORDINARY candidate -- no privileged rival due, + so the pre-fix-round code's "no privileged? take the best of what's + left" fallback would (wrongly) admit it -- is admitted NOTHING. The + slot is reserved for a II-class candidate specifically; a III-class + ordinary one has no standing for it at all, unlike "other II class" + below, which has no such restriction. *) + ( "II-class Sunday, sole candidate is an ORDINARY Class3 (not \ + \"de festo II classis\") -> admitted nothing, not the best available", + observed_class2_sunday, + [ (ordinary_class3, P.Ordinary) ], + [] ); (* RG 111: "other II class: one" -- no privilege override, the exact asymmetry the brief and precedence_ef.ml's own [admit] comment flag: same candidate pair as the II-class-Sunday row above, OPPOSITE |