diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp')
| -rw-r--r-- | data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp | 140 |
1 files changed, 122 insertions, 18 deletions
diff --git a/data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp b/data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp index df813f9..d91028a 100644 --- a/data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp +++ b/data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp @@ -10,6 +10,11 @@ ; 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. +; L5 was MISADJUDICATED as "colitur's own gap" and CORRECTED +; (l5-f3-readjudication task, 2026-08-22): see L5's own entry for the +; full account -- it is an OCCURRENCE difference (the LMS Ordo follows +; the 2020 decree Cum Sanctissima, colitur excludes it by binding +; design), not a Gloria defect. ; ; A SEPARATE file from data/ef/expected-divergences.sexp (the lectio ; allow-list) and data/ef/expected-divergences-missalemeum.sexp (the @@ -233,14 +238,32 @@ (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] +; L5 -- MISADJUDICATED, NOW CORRECTED (l5-f3-readjudication task, +; 2026-08-22). This entry previously read "OPEN, colitur's own gap" -- +; WRONG, on two independent grounds (below). It is NOT a Gloria defect +; of colitur's. It is NOT a rubric dispute at all: it is an OCCURRENCE +; difference, because the LMS Ordo is compiled to the 2020 decree Cum +; Sanctissima (its own introduction says so, docs/research/ordo/ +; PROVENANCE-lms.md) and colitur excludes that decree from its 1962 core +; by BINDING DESIGN (CLAUDE.md decision 2: "Every addition [2020 Quo +; Magis/Cum Sanctissima, any community's proper] is an overlay, never +; core"). On these 16 dates colitur and the LMS Ordo each correctly +; describe a DIFFERENT, both genuine, calendar -- they were never +; disagreeing about the same one. VERDICT: colitur correct. 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. +; asserted per window directly -- KEPT, unlike a bug-driven divergence +; that stops firing once fixed (data/ef/expected-divergences-fiuv.sexp's +; own F3, closed by this same task, is that other shape): this one is +; EXPECTED TO RECUR IN EVERY FUTURE WINDOW, because the exclusion it +; reflects is a standing design decision, not a defect to remove. +; +; THE ORIGINAL, SUPERSEDED HYPOTHESIS -- preserved below verbatim, the +; same "retain the wrong reading and say why it was wrong" convention +; L3's and F1's own history in this file already establish, NOT deleted: ; ; SHAPE, identical in all 16 instances found (5+5+6, zero exceptions): ; a privileged Lenten or Passiontide feria (Class3, violet -- RG25, @@ -251,6 +274,8 @@ ; 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. +; (This description of the SHAPE is still accurate -- what was wrong is +; the CONCLUSION drawn from it, below.) ; ; CITATION (docs/research/LT.txt:2359-2361, "V - De Missis festivis", ; quoted in rubrics_ef.ml's own [gloria] header in full): "302. Sensu @@ -263,7 +288,9 @@ ; 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, +; WHY NOT FIXED HERE (the original text, which already quoted the very +; clause that defeats its own hypothesis, below, but did not follow it +; to its conclusion): 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 @@ -273,29 +300,29 @@ ; 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 +; 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\". +; 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 +; UPDATE (same original 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 +; 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 +; 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 @@ -303,8 +330,85 @@ ; 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. +; for a follow-on task with more primary-source access than this one had. +; (CORRECTED, l5-f3-readjudication task: F3's own "single-witness +; finding" was never a Te Deum finding at all -- it was +; tools/extract_fiuv_ordo.ml reading the WRONG PRINTED OFFICE, see below. +; There was no Office-vs-Mass question to be uncertain about.) +; +; THE CORRECTION, in full (l5-f3-readjudication task, 2026-08-22): +; +; 1. RG303(b) ALREADY DEFEATS the n.302(b)/431(b) hypothesis on its own +; terms -- the original text above quoted it but stopped short of the +; conclusion. Quoted again, in full, because it is the load-bearing +; sentence: "dici potest tantum si occurrit dies liturgicus IV +; classis" -- [a Mass "of a commemoration occurring in the day's own +; Office"] MAY BE SAID ONLY IF the liturgical day occurring is FOURTH +; class. A privileged Lenten or Passiontide feria is THIRD class +; (RG25) -- every one of these 16 instances. So n.302(b) is +; PROHIBITED, not merely inapplicable, on precisely the days this +; entry covers, and 431(b)'s own Gloria elevation, which depends on +; 302(b), can never reach them. Not "unresolved without n.304" as the +; original text guessed: 303(b) alone already closes the question, +; the wrong way for the original hypothesis. +; +; 2. THE FIUV ORDO PRINTS BOTH OPTIONS, and this is decisive on its own, +; independent of (1). All 16 LMS dates are Lenten/Passiontide +; privileged ferias; six of them fall inside the FIUV fixture's own +; 2025-2026 window (2026-03-06/07/09/12/21/24 -- the same six F3 +; named). For every one of the six, the raw FIUV source (verified +; directly against a fresh pdftotext -layout dump, not merely the +; fixture) prints TWO complete readings for the SAME civil date, +; separated by a literal "-VEL-" ("or") token. 24 March 2026, in +; full: +; +; 24. Viol Feria III post Dom. I Passionis, De ea, III cl. - Off. feriale temp. Passionis. +; Ad LAUDES ... comm. S Gabrielis Archangeli. +; Missa pr., (omittuntur ps. Iudica me et Gloria Patri), sine Gloria, comm. S +; Gabrielis Archangeli, sine Credo, praef. de Sancta Cruce or. super populum. +; I VESPERAE de seq., comm. huius diei. - Compl. de dom. +; -VEL- +; Feria III. S Gabrielis Archangeli, III cl. (Priv.) - Off. ordinarium. - Ad Mat. +; Ll. 1a et 2a (= 2a + 3a) de Scr. occ., 3a de festo, Te Deum. - Ad LAUDES comm. +; Feriae. +; Missa pr., Gloria, comm. Feriae, tractus, sine Credo, praef. de Sancta Cruce vel +; de Angelis. +; +; The FIRST option is strict 1962: the feria wins, "sine Gloria", no +; Te Deum stated, the saint merely commemorated -- EXACTLY colitur's +; own answer, field for field. The SECOND, after "-VEL-", is the +; Cum-Sanctissima-elevated option: the saint's own feast, "Off. +; ordinarium", Gloria, Te Deum, the feria commemorated instead -- +; EXACTLY the LMS Ordo's own answer. The FIUV Ordo's own title page +; states the convention this book uses throughout for exactly this +; distinction (N.B., page 1, verified directly against the PDF): +; "days of the third class to which the norms of the decree Cum +; santissima [sic] apply are marked 'III cl.' ... but days ... to +; which these norms do not apply are marked 'III cl. (Priv.)'." One +; document, compiled by a THIRD party independent of both colitur's +; own lineage and the LMS, prints BOTH engines' own answers side by +; side as two legitimate readings of two different calendars. There +; is no dispute left to adjudicate. +; +; So the Gloria and Te Deum RULES were never in dispute at all: each +; engine's answer follows correctly from its own occurrence result, on +; its own calendar. What this entry originally described as "colitur's +; own gap" is colitur correctly implementing the 1962 core it was built +; to implement, diverging from a printed book that, by its own +; introduction, deliberately implements something else. +; +; NOTE ALSO (so a reader arriving here from +; data/ef/expected-divergences-fiuv.sexp's own F3 does not draw the +; wrong conclusion from that entry's own closure): F3 did NOT +; "corroborate" or "contradict" L5 at any point in this history. Both +; were the same underlying fact read two different ways, and F3's own +; apparent Te Deum-true reading was never a real second data point in +; the first place -- it was tools/extract_fiuv_ordo.ml's own +; [extract_te_deum] silently reading the SECOND ("-VEL-") office's own +; Te Deum instead of the primary's, on exactly these six dates, closed +; by fixing the extractor (tools/extract_fiuv_ordo.ml's own +; [split_at_alt_office]), not by resolving any Office-vs-Mass question. +; See F3's own entry for the full account. ; L6 -- OPEN, root-caused to a DIFFERENT, PRE-EXISTING bug this Gloria ; comparison merely surfaced, not a Gloria defect itself. Fired once, |