diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp')
| -rw-r--r-- | data/ef/expected-divergences-lms.sexp | 112 |
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.") |