Skip to content

docs(proofs): record Stage 1.1; add optimisation ledger + build-with-proofs discipline; truth-fix TOPOLOGY#48

Merged
hyperpolymath merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/dazzling-noether-hkgAV
Jun 17, 2026
Merged

docs(proofs): record Stage 1.1; add optimisation ledger + build-with-proofs discipline; truth-fix TOPOLOGY#48
hyperpolymath merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
claude/dazzling-noether-hkgAV

Conversation

@hyperpolymath

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Summary

Documentation-only update closing out the Stage 1.1 milestone and re-anchoring the repo's status claims to the proof ledger. No .idr changes — the proven surface is unchanged from 205df0a (Stage 1.1, verified green on main).

docs/PROOFS.adoc (authoritative ledger)

  • Mark Stage 1.1 (buildGetLeaf) DONE; add buildGetLeaf + Ochrance.Util.VectLemmas (×5) to the proven surface.
  • Flip the powerTwoSucc transport WATCH-FOR → RESOLVED (discharged via the indexReplace / finToNatReplace / splitAtConcat transport-cancellation lemmas — no builder reshape).
  • Split remaining Stage 1 into 1.2 root-fold law / 1.3 IO↔pure bridge / 1.4 D2 CollisionResistant.
  • Surface the Repair-is-a-stub precondition for Stage 3 (+ recommended pure-model decision) — proving a no-op repair would be vacuous or false.
  • Add three methodology sections: the IO↔pure bridge (estate-wide spine), the build-with-proofs discipline, and the optimisation ledger (against the proven backdrop).
  • Reconcile the module count (19 core modules + separate src/abi tree; was "24").

TOPOLOGY.md (dashboard truth-fix)

The dashboard claimed Merkle 100%, A2ML 100%, Zig FFI 100%, ECHIDNA 60% refining, overall ~80% — contradicting the ledger (crypto not yet linked; ECHIDNA entirely stubbed; Repair a stub). Regraded onto the honest proof axis: Merkle 70%, Repair 20% (stub), ECHIDNA 10% (stubbed), crypto-linked 20%, overall ~40%; points to PROOFS.adoc as authoritative.

Why

Keeps the repo's outward claims from outstripping the proofs, and records — for the next working window — exactly which code is safe to optimise (anything under a proof) and which must be proven first.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

https://claude.ai/code/session_011z2t8zAxfcCNLJzU7YdpBQ


Generated by Claude Code

…proofs discipline; truth-fix TOPOLOGY

PROOFS.adoc:
- Mark Stage 1.1 (buildGetLeaf) DONE; add buildGetLeaf + Util.VectLemmas to the
  proven surface; flip the powerTwoSucc transport WATCH-FOR -> RESOLVED.
- Split remaining Stage 1 into 1.2 root-fold law / 1.3 IO<->pure bridge / 1.4 D2.
- Surface the Repair-is-a-stub precondition + recommended pure-model decision (Stage 3).
- Add three sections: the IO<->pure bridge (estate-wide spine), the build-with-proofs
  discipline, and the optimisation ledger (against the proven backdrop).
- Reconcile module count: 19 core modules (+ separate src/abi tree).

TOPOLOGY.md:
- Regrade the dashboard onto the honest proof axis: Merkle 70%, Repair 20% (stub),
  ECHIDNA 10% (stubbed), crypto-not-yet-linked 20%. Replaces the inflated 80-100%
  bars that contradicted the ledger.
- Point to docs/PROOFS.adoc as authoritative; clarify bars track proof completeness.

https://claude.ai/code/session_011z2t8zAxfcCNLJzU7YdpBQ
@hyperpolymath
hyperpolymath marked this pull request as ready for review June 17, 2026 23:10
@hyperpolymath
hyperpolymath merged commit 0785a9f into main Jun 17, 2026
17 checks passed
@hyperpolymath
hyperpolymath deleted the claude/dazzling-noether-hkgAV branch June 17, 2026 23:10
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants