S1 — Name all three packages where the wheel is described, and check it (closes C-96)

[Polichinel]

S1 of epic #267. Closes #268.

The problem

The wheel has shipped three packages since v1.7.0. Two live documents still said two:

Site	What was wrong	Which half of the check sees it
.github/workflows/publish_package.yml	named two of three — in the workflow that actually publishes	completeness only (no count word used)
docs/guides/publishing-to-pypi.md	# sanity: BOTH packages + their py.typed	literal only (the file names all three elsewhere)

The second is why this got a register entry. That file was corrected earlier the same day and the class reported as fixed, after grepping for one remembered phrasing — the fourth time this register has recorded a fix reaching the instance rather than the class, and the first where the miss sat inside a file already edited.

The check

docs/validate_docs.sh check 10, two halves, because neither catches the other case.

Scoping is the load-bearing part. Five correct uses exist — ADR-017 "Two packages to maintain", C-23 "shipped in both packages", three postmortem "two sibling packages" — all true when written. Flagging them would make the check noise, and noisy checks get deleted. So it takes an explicit list of documents describing the current wheel, the way check 3 restricts itself to the constitutional ADRs.

Mutation-tested five ways, all erroring

stale count word reintroduced       -> ERROR, names the file and line
package dropped from the guide      -> ERROR
package dropped from the workflow   -> ERROR
a FOURTH package added, undocumented-> ERROR  (the generalisation test)
pyproject package list unreadable   -> ERROR  (non-vacuity)

And it caught a real regression minutes after being written. Cleaning up after the first mutation with git checkout discarded the still-uncommitted workflow fix — the check failed on the next run rather than the mistake reaching a commit.

One thing worth knowing

The first draft of the corrected comment quoted the old wording to explain the change, and the literal half flagged it. I reworded rather than teaching the check about quotation. The check stays dumb; that is the property that makes it survivable.

What it does not catch, stated in its own comment: a novel phrasing that omits a package in a file which names all three somewhere else. The completeness half is per-file, not per-claim.

Verification

validate_docs.sh   PASSED — OK (wheel ships 3 packages; checked 2 wheel-describing documents)
ruff check         All checks passed!
pytest --cov       100.00%

Register: 93 entries, 10 open, 83 resolved, 0 actionable.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code