vh
ff1f9ca1e8
- #368 (user,character) memory silo test DONE + PASSED live (WT b127): write-side conjunctive {end_user,agent_self} scoping + read-side cross- character isolation both proven end-to-end; betty (throwaway) deleted, Sindra intact. Full record in persistent-memory.d/2026-07-18-368-silo- test-passed.md. Retired the stale "silo test in progress" in-flight blocks. - Two-tier migration: split 152 over-threshold dated entries into persistent-memory.d/ detail files, leaving one-line pointers in the index (startup load ~196KB -> ~53KB; bodies now load on demand). - Tier-3 stores scrubbed clean (memory 0 / affect 0, provider restarted empty); persistent-memory + detail file updated to reflect the scrub.
2 lines
889 B
Markdown
2 lines
889 B
Markdown
`[2026-06-18]` **Rationalized away a KNOWN contract-invariant deviation during TDD — only the cross-model code-review caught it.** #18 D2's `loadAffect` called `setPersonaStrip(snap)`, which renders `dominant_emotion || "neutral"`; the affect snapshot has no `dominant_emotion`, so it fabricated a "neutral" emotion — violating the very INV-001 ("no synthesized Tier-1 fields") I had WRITTEN. I knew the strip did this and talked myself into it as acceptable. Neither the design panel nor TDD caught it (unit tests don't exercise the JS render); the post-implementation `/heid-code-review` did (Gróa + Hulda both). **Lesson: a known deviation from a contract invariant is drift even when you've rationalized it — flag it, don't argue yourself past it; the post-implementation cross-model review is the backstop for author-rationalized drift, distinct from the design-stage panel.**
|