Repository navigation
docs: report-schema says value ownership 'through' the typed codes, not 'complete' - #400
Merged
Merged
Conversation
… not 'complete' docs/pages/report-schema.md said that revision 1.3 means "complete value ownership with" the four value-failure codes. That sentence came in with 868aa65 (#388). No completeness proof has been run (EN-115), so the published API docs claimed more than the evidence supports. The sentence now says "covering value ownership through", the wording of the 1.6.0 notes (CHANGELOG, README.md, docker/README.md, #399). It replaces the #388 phrase "meaning complete value ownership with". Docs only; no code, test or harness change. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
luisleo526
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2026
Resolve docs/pages/report-schema.md: keep #400's fact that the published 1.6.0 image declares 1.3, and this branch's 1.6.1 1.3-parity declaration; drop the "covering value ownership" wording the #401 review flagged. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
luisleo526
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2026
* docs: the 1.6.1-rc.1 release candidate notes Prepare the 1.6.1-rc.1 changelog entry dated 2026-10-17, carrying forward the reviewed 1.6.1 — Unreleased section (b148979, c818585) and naming all pull requests merged since v1.6.0 (#398, #400, #401, #402). Update the two CHANGELOG section anchor links in README.md and docs/pages/public-contract.md introduced by b148979 from #161--unreleased to #161-rc1--2026-10-17 while keeping the current final release and pair lines on 1.6.0. * docs: drop the hpo-candidate pairing line from the 1.6.1-rc.1 entry (review of #403) No pineforge-hpo release candidate exists yet and the reviewed 1.6.1 entry did not claim one. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <[email protected]> --------- Co-authored-by: HaoLiangWen <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 5.5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
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
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.
docs/pages/report-schema.md said that revision
1.3means "complete value ownership with" the four value-failure codes; that phrase came from #388. No completeness proof has been run (EN-115), so the published API docs (cdocs) claimed more than the evidence supports.The sentence now reads "covering value ownership through …", the wording of the 1.6.0 notes (#399). Docs only: one sentence, no code, test or harness change. doc-reverts: 0 unnamed deletions.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code