FPRD LabShare an approach

Run 06: how the sequence claim changed

Date: 23 September 2026

Contents

Scope

This run reconstructs the source-history sequence from the early direct palindrome claim through Draft 5, and compares the matching causal-paper snapshots. The dates below are source commit dates. They are not asserted to be deployment dates, and the archive does not show which edition a particular reviewer downloaded.

The four circulated paper bodies and PDFs were not changed.

Chronology

  1. On 4 September, the expanded direct reading edition claimed Theorem 12.2 while treating a modern deque implementation as comparison evidence rather than a premise. It relied instead on the original Kaplan-Tarjan result and the staging lemma.
  2. The first 10 September source-audit revision qualified the opening but temporarily left the old theorem label in the body. This was a transitional, internally inconsistent snapshot and is preserved as such.
  3. The next source change explicitly withdrew Theorem 12.2 and its corollary, pending a concrete sequence bridge and complete client resource audit.
  4. Fixed-layout and source-resource work then narrowed the remaining issue. The theorem stayed withdrawn until an end-to-end audit isolated one whole-client source-to-plan normalization obligation.
  5. A whole-client normalization theorem restored the direct result in a stated abstract source-record model. The same source change updated the causal companion from an open application to language saying that an explicit implementation and resource certificate had been supplied.
  6. The next day’s mutation attack showed that the numerical path checker did not establish source-path coverage or old/fresh pointer provenance. The direct paper withdrew the numerical radius while retaining the qualitative abstract theorem. Later source checks strengthened coverage but did not restore the radius.
  7. Draft 5 consolidated the current position: Theorem 12.2 is conditional on the Section 11.1 sequence contract, and the concrete implementation work is described separately as informal source-level evidence. The causal paper did not absorb this later assurance-language change and still names Draft 4 while linking to Draft 5.

Interpretation

The historical withdrawal was real, but it is not the current status of the direct theorem. The current theorem is a conditional construction in an abstract model. What remains incomplete is the stronger claim that a particular pinned implementation has a complete mechanically established old/fresh provenance and numerical access certificate.

The causal mismatch has a specific origin. Its current companion wording was written at the restoration stage, before the numerical certificate was withdrawn and before Draft 5 separated the abstract theorem from implementation evidence more sharply. This supports a future coordinated wording and citation repair. It does not justify an immediate retraction, and it does not propagate to the causal generic compiler, the transfer proof, or unary coherence.

Evidence

  • check_sequence_history.py checks 15 exact statement markers across ten preserved HTML snapshots.
  • sequence-history-output.json records the passing result.
  • history/manifest.json supplies content hashes, source commits, and commit dates for every preserved snapshot.

Next

Resume R02: compare native finite scaffold views with the causal paper’s port-word observations, including the base-versus-missing boundary, and trace the result through the causal and unary papers and T153-T161.

Any paper revision remains reserved for matching numbered PDF and HTML editions, built from one source and ending with a concise cumulative change history.