Repository navigation
Adopt ADMIT-009: extraction_confidence must not persist onto admitted canon - #505
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…onto admitted canon RESCUED, NOT PROPOSED. This work was found uncommitted in an abandoned worktree, orphaned when both of its tracking issues closed. It is pushed so it stops depending on one machine's untracked working tree; it is not a claim that it should land as-is. What it does: declares ADMIT-009 (warning) in CONTRACT.md's rule table, adds the §11.1 passage explaining why extraction_confidence is an ingest-candidate review flag that never reaches canon and never enters the §11.4 confidence formula, registers the code in vocabulary.yaml, and points ELEMENT_PRIMITIVES.md §7.29 at it. The open question it does not settle: the enforcing check already shipped in transitrix-studio as ELEM-CANDIDATE-FIELD-001, deliberately NOT claiming a number in methodology's own series because that series belongs here. Whether methodology adopts it as ADMIT-009, renames it, or leaves enforcement wholly Studio-side is a call for whoever owns the rule-code registry — this branch just makes the spec-side draft reviewable instead of losing it. Applies cleanly to current main; check-notations.mjs clean and its 92 tests pass with the new code registered. Refs transitrix-hq#206 (closed), transitrix-hq#197. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
github-actions
Bot
added
the
needs:human-merge
transitrix
added a commit
to transitrix/transitrix-studio
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 20, 2026
transitrix/methodology#505 (merged 2026-08-19) registered ADMIT-009 for the candidate-only-field-on-admitted-canon rule Studio had implemented under a placeholder Studio-authored code. No functional change.
This was referenced Sep 2, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
Resolves the placement question left open by THQ-224. Adopts the rescued draft as-is:
ADMIT-009(warning) inCONTRACT.md§6.1, the §11.1 passage separatingextraction_confidencefrom the two signals that reach canon, thevocabulary.yamlregistration, and theELEMENT_PRIMITIVES.md§7.29 cross-reference.Why
ADMIT-009, notELEM-*or Studio-onlyhq#224 asked whoever owns the rule-code registry to pick between three options: adopt into
ADMIT-*, rename intoELEM-*, or leave enforcement wholly intransitrix-studio. The two series have distinct concerns already established by the existing table:ELEM-*(ELEMENT_PRIMITIVES.md §11) governs per-file structural validity — id grammar, folder placement, type membership. It is checked against one file's shape.ADMIT-*(CONTRACT.md §6.1) governs field presence/legality relative toadmission_state—ADMIT-005(an active artefact must not depend on a proposed one),ADMIT-008(a proposed artefact needsowner_to_confirm). This rule — a field that is legal pre-admission and illegal post-admission — is the same shape as those two, not a structural check.Leaving it Studio-only was rejected because the flag is a canon-admission concept (what may persist onto
zone: canon), not an editor/tooling concern — the spec should be the source of truth for what the rule means, independent of which tool enforces it.Cross-repo follow-up (not in this PR)
transitrix-studio's existing check (ELEM-CANDIDATE-FIELD-001, PR #547) enforces this already but deliberately didn't claim a methodology-series number. Once this merges, Studio's check should be renamed/aliased toADMIT-009for consistency — flagged to the Studio agent via the sibling channel, not done here (out of this repo's authorship boundary).Verification
node scripts/check-notations.mjs— clean (pre-existing SIZE1 soft-ceiling warnings only, unrelated to this change).node --test scripts/*.test.mjs— 135/135 pass.Test plan
Refs THQ-224, THQ-206, THQ-197.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code