Files
booth/persistent-memory.d/2026-09-21-u2-seam-review-earned-it.md
T
Vuong Hoang d37b81ab9f memory: snapshot — U5 released at v0.3.0, and the index goes two-tier
The two dated log sections had never been split, so every one of their 29
entries sat inline and the startup index had grown to 372 lines — which is
the cost the two-tier scheme exists to remove, paid on every session that
reads the file. 27 entries were over threshold. All 29 now have a detail
file under persistent-memory.d/ and a one-line index entry that routes
rather than restates. Index: 372 -> 93 lines.

No archival. The soft cap fired, but every entry in this repo is dated
2026-09-21 or later, so the under-14-days guard held all of them back — and
the split alone took the index well under the target without moving
anything out of the active file.

The in-flight section is rewritten for the post-release state: nothing is
in flight, no gate is outstanding, and the next unit is explicitly recorded
as the operator's undecided call rather than as a plan. The session's
recommendation (U4, on three grounds) is written down so it does not have
to be re-derived, alongside the two alternatives and why they are
alternatives.

Two dated predictions are carried forward with their dates and their
instruments: the U5 adoption re-measure on 2026-09-29, which already reads
3 of 24 announced and 2 with a why from peers told nothing, and the
.forever re-count a fortnight AFTER U4 lands, which is U4's own success
criterion and is destroyed by running it early.
2026-09-22 08:20:51 -07:00

957 B

The U2 seam review earned its place, and how

2026-09-21 · booth

The U2 seam review earned its place, and the record should say how. Nine findings against the real booth.asks / booth.items / booth.inline surfaces, two of which changed scope or behaviour: inline.py was missing from touches entirely (its place() indexes asks by subscript, which a frozen dataclass refuses — nothing else in the service does that), and the partial-answer inconsistency above. The cold /heid-contract-review pass is artifact-only by design and structurally cannot see a sibling module, so neither it nor a same-model self-review would have found either. Two more surfaced later and are worth the same note: a SECOND subscript in inline.place the seam review undercounted, and a regression in my own legacy importer that a retargeted test caught — a malformed sidecar that renders ⚠ broken today would have silently vanished on migration.