Repository navigation
docs: sync §11 checklists + I0 result cross-reference - #459
Conversation
Three coherence edits now that prereq implementations are in flight: 1. §11 Prereq 1 checklist — removed stale "delete substrate.dag FieldAccessor marker" item (§3.6 1a never adds FieldAccessor, so there's nothing to delete). Added infer.rs decide_field_project and multi-hop test items to match #458's actual implementation. 2. §11 Prereq 3 checklist — added call-site rewrite item, unannotated fail-closed test, and a scope note documenting the contextual-first landing (#457's intentional scope: lambdas lower only when an expected function type is available). Callback-rule lens test moved to follow-up scope. 3. inference-as-data-experiments.md §6 Q6 — replaced placeholder with I0 result summary and cross-reference to docs/inference-as-data-i0-result.md (ships with #457). Updated §7 "When this doc updates" to mark I0 as complete. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
![chatgpt-codex-connector[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/1144995?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
💡 Codex Review
Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.
Reviewed commit: 37837950c7
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".
| the four decidability structural elements, any surprises, | ||
| and recommendation for I1 to proceed or not. | ||
| 6. **I0 results.** The I0 paper exercise has been completed | ||
| and the full result is in `docs/inference-as-data-i0-result.md` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The new text says the full I0 write-up lives in docs/inference-as-data-i0-result.md, but that file is not present in this repository, so this change introduces a dead reference right where readers are told to find the canonical result details. In practice, anyone following the §6/§7 guidance cannot verify the summarized conclusion or trace the underlying analysis, which undermines the doc’s role as the source of record for experiment status.
Useful? React with 👍 / 👎.
|
ChatGPT review in progress... (view conversation) Check back in ~30 minutes for the full review. |
1 participant
Summary
Three coherence edits to keep design docs accurate as prereq implementations (#457, #458) land:
docs/inference-as-data-i0-result.mdNo code changes. Pure doc coherence.
Test plan
🤖 Generated with Claude Code