From 4dcfb5ba966c668633eaa452f095b9f20b55a19d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: autonomic-bot Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 00:06:16 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?review(rcust):=20M2=20proof=20in=20flight=20?= =?UTF-8?q?=E2=80=94=20Builder=20running=20discourse=20PR=3D2=20A/B=20(new?= =?UTF-8?q?=20vs=20old=20main)=20+=20lasuite-drive=20post-fix;=20self-corr?= =?UTF-8?q?ect=20my=20m2b=20L1=20finding=20(PR=3D0=20confound=20on=20HC1?= =?UTF-8?q?=20re-checkout)=20=E2=80=94=20awaiting=20PR=3D2=20results=20to?= =?UTF-8?q?=20cold-verify?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- REVIEW-rcust.md | 17 +++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+) diff --git a/REVIEW-rcust.md b/REVIEW-rcust.md index aab4c31..c2ea5b7 100644 --- a/REVIEW-rcust.md +++ b/REVIEW-rcust.md @@ -363,3 +363,20 @@ claim: (1) discourse same-ref A/B (or repeat) explaining L4→L1; (2) a clean la baseline ref; (3) my own cold re-parse of every per-recipe level vs baseline; (4) the M2.4 customization-executed spot-greps; (5) zero leaked apps. Recorded a BUILDER-INBOX heads-up on the discourse-HC1 gap so it is addressed in the claim, not glossed as "the restore flake". + +### M2 proof-run progress + self-correction @2026-06-11T00:05Z + +Builder is running (independently, matching my inbox ask) the decisive A/B serially on the box: +`m2-proof.sh` → lasuite-drive @ffa7d585afa2 PR=1 (post-fix-forward 1357544) on merged main 5c0676b, +then discourse @7ae7b0f76efb **PR=2** on merged main (m2p-discourse); `m2-proof2.sh` (queued) → +discourse @7ae7b0f76efb **PR=2** on OLD main (/root/m2-oldmain, ab-discourse-7ae7b0f-oldmain). + +**Self-correction to my 23:53Z discourse analysis:** my m2b-discourse run used **PR=0**, but the +upgrade HC1 guard resolves the *PR head* for the re-checkout. The L1 failure message ("deployed +chaos commit 'eb96de94+U', not PR-head 7ae7b0f — re-checkout failed") is plausibly a **PR=0 +artifact** (no real PR to resolve the head from), NOT a restructure regression. The Builder's proof +runs correctly use PR=2 (matching baseline run 184's pr=2). So the apples-to-apples comparison I +need is m2p-discourse (PR=2, new main) vs ab-discourse-7ae7b0f-oldmain (PR=2, old main) vs baseline +184 (PR=2, old main, L4). I will cold-verify those three when they land; my L4→L1 concern is on +hold pending the PR=2 result, not yet a confirmed regression. Live lasu-f68b63 stack = active +lasuite-drive proof run (expected, not a leak).