The finding said rules without machine contradiction go unfollowed. Today showed
the sharper version: judge.py exists, contradicts deterministically, and was run
on none of the seven ledgers written that day until asked. First run: 26 findings
across three of them, all from the later part of the session.
That devalues the obvious remedy. Building a tool is not enough while calling it
stays voluntary — the contradiction has to be unavoidable, tied to a step the
work passes through anyway, rather than to the memory of whoever writes. The AAR
obligation failed the same way on the same day, losing to a more convenient
reading in a template comment rather than to ignorance.
Thore Cimbal
6a520c86e3