repair: close v4 post-merge evidence and projection defects

[erinepshovel-code]

Post-merge repair for METAPAT v4. PR #32 merged before its exact-head Codex review completed; that review subsequently reported live P1/P2 projection defects. The independent double-entry adversary also had pre-existing P1 evidence/standing defects that were carried into main.

This branch begins by repairing the adversary evidence without changing the frozen decision rule:

• pin the exact v2→v3 synthesis commit/blob and bounded accounting sources;
• restore the preregistered overall outcome FALSIFIED rather than the invented FALSIFIED_IN_PART label;
• separate state from scalar measurement;
• leave Boundary/Simplex/Tensor/Emerge unresolved where the accounting evidence does not establish the exact METAPAT relation;
• map Vector by state alteration plus scalar inference rather than notation;
• keep the weaker partial-property postulate UNRESOLVED rather than claiming it was falsified by failure of the energy name.

The v4 direction itself is preserved: domain qualification is a stricter non-transfer rule and universal energy naming was falsified. The evidence standing for the weaker partial-property postulate must not be overstated.

Remaining live review repairs from #32 are in scope: regenerate llms.txt; rotate stale v3 operational guidance/fixtures to v4; require old consumers to bind v4; repair claims-ledger and module-kind documentation; correct the domain_term_is_qualified description; mark the adopted v4 release record consistently; and distinguish domain qualification from the action/measurement/result extension.

No new canon expansion is authorized here. This is repair of the already-adopted v4 authority/projection surface.

hmmm: the weaker Every domain exposes some properties of Platonic energy claim is unresolved by the double-entry adversary; v4 may withdraw that universal claim without pretending this adversary falsified it.

[erinepshovel-code]

@codex address that feedback

On this repair branch, implement the still-live post-merge findings from #32 without changing the v4 semantic direction: regenerate llms.txt from current v4 declarations and add/retain drift verification; rotate all remaining operative v3 instructions and fixture names to v4; require pre-v4 consumers (including v3) to fail closed until explicitly bound to v4; make README/module-kind documentation match MODULE_KINDS (domain-qualification, not removed energy); repair the claims ledger so universal energy is retracted and domain qualification is current; correct the documentation of domain_term_is_qualified to say it checks domain licensing rather than structural components; mark the already-merged v4 rotation as adopted; and distinguish domain qualification from the action/measurement/result extension. Preserve the corrected adversary standing already on this branch: universal energy naming FALSIFIED, weaker partial-property postulate UNRESOLVED. Add exact drift/contract tests as needed. Do not expand canon beyond the adopted v4 rule.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

To use Codex here, create an environment for this repo.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: d4b058fee0

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review Summary

This comment shows the latest Codex review activity on this pull request.

Review	Status	Commit	Review trigger
📝 Code Review	✅ Completed 2026-09-15T17:11:30.988141Z	c462ace	Manual request

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review" or "@codex security review".

Codex reacts with 👀 while any review is running, comments if it has suggestions, and reacts with 👍 once all reviews finish with no findings.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 0fe6f6f562

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[erinepshovel-code]

@codex review

Review exact head ce7b48e4f1fcd4b2b077225b5beff911370b1606 for substantive P1/P2 defects. Verify that canon identity schema 4.0.0 matches the exact v4 public shape; pre-v4 consumers fail closed until explicit migration; PR #32 remains the assent authority rather than repository gates or adversary evidence; the double-entry result preserves the frozen taxonomy and unresolved sequence/invariant/root mappings; and all generated fixtures, msdmd, llms, package, and CI projections are current. Do not treat green CI as canon assent.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: ce7b48e4f1

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[erinepshovel-code]

@codex review

Please review exact head 8c5fdb4ae8d83cb9bd8756fd1b58561d95b981b7. Verify specifically that (1) canon identity schema 4.0.0 names the exact v4 public shape, (2) module-envelope wire schema 2.0.0 makes the prior 1.2.0 parser epoch fail closed and migration remains explicit, (3) PR #32—not repository gates—remains the recorded assent authority, (4) all ten usage rules are present in generated llms.txt, (5) the package dependency graph names the live validation provider, and (6) the OpenStax section/subsection locator is accurate. Please report any current-head blocker to merge readiness.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. 🎉

Reviewed commit: 8c5fdb4ae8

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[erinepshovel-code]

@codex review

Please review the new exact head eb6614fb34bd2081ed40f47953ce9ba2c256a7c7 for any remaining merge blocker. This head includes the prior wire-schema/projection/dependency/provenance repairs and also removes the last operative pre-v4 identity projections found in a repository-wide sweep: ROADMAP.md, the electromagnetic-pipe release surface, and the affixiation/harmonics application identity now consistently bind v4. Historical snapshots/releases and negative migration tests remain intentionally labeled with earlier epochs. Verify explicit PR #32 assent and fail-closed migration boundaries remain intact.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: eb6614fb34

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[erinepshovel-code]

@codex review

Review exact head 101da0e99071baf90cd9d1d1f194321067c13542 for remaining merge blockers. The outer UCNSAdaptationRecord wire is now 2.0.0; the pre-v4 1.0.0 parser therefore rejects it. Current reconstruction additionally requires envelope schema 2.0.0, exact metapat-canon-v4 version/digest, a valid reconstructed envelope provenance digest, strict false validity-transfer fields, declared field shape, and sequence/scalar types. Tests cover prior outer/envelope/canon identities, tampering, malformed types, and implicit fields. Verify these changes preserve PR #32 as assent authority and do not overclaim UCNS, EDCM, empirical, or formal validity.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Another round soon, please!

Reviewed commit: 101da0e990

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[erinepshovel-code]

@codex review

Review exact current head c462acecdfc3da1208207548718828c952f67cb9 for any remaining merge blocker. In addition to the repaired envelope and UCNS-adaptation epochs, the application-module wire is now 2.0.0; the pre-v4 application parser at 72bb6ac requires 1.0.0 and therefore rejects current v4 applications before semantic use. Exact tests and wheel smoke bind identity schema 4.0.0 and all three cross-repository wires at 2.0.0. Historical files and negative migration tests retain prior labels intentionally. Verify PR #32 remains the sole recorded canon assent and all migration boundaries fail closed without transferring domain, measurement, theorem, UCNS-topology, empirical, or formal validity.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

Codex Review: Didn't find any major issues. Already looking forward to the next diff.

Reviewed commit: c462acecdf

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".