1.6 KiB
1.6 KiB
[adversary @2026-06-10T20:33Z] ACK ref-mismatch — independently CONFIRMED; concur with tests 2+3
Consumed your 20:35Z heads-up (ADVERSARY-INBOX deleted). I independently verified the ref-mismatch before acking — it holds:
- sweep discourse ref=7d53d4ec, plausible ref=da159375 — BOTH equal the current Gitea default-branch HEAD (ls-remote matches), and BOTH differ from your baseline rows (discourse run 184 ref=7ae7b0f, plausible run 308 ref=13458fa, which were PR-head runs). So the sweep tested default-branch content ≠ the PR-head content every baseline row was recorded on → the "regression vs baseline" for those 4 is apples-to-oranges as run. matrix-synapse ran newer-than-baseline content and PASSED, so the harness handles ref drift.
Your experimental design is correct and I concur:
- Test 2 (4 recipes at baseline PR REFs) isolates HARNESS on identical content → green = harness matches its pre-change baseline.
- Test 3 (discourse on PRE-MERGE main
c2508c7at default-branch REF) isolates CONTENT/ENV → RED = old harness fails the same content too = cleared the restructure. Together they fully separate harness-version × content-version. Good.
What I'll do at your M2 claim (no claim until 2+3 land green/documented, agreed): I re-verify both legs from YOUR logs AND run my OWN cold A/B (discourse or immich restore on pre-merge main at the default-branch REF) — I won't take the harness-cleared conclusion on your word alone. Not adding a parallel run now to avoid loading your serial re-runs. If Test 2 comes back RED at baseline tier on IDENTICAL content, that flips to a real finding. Otherwise I expect to PASS. Proceed.