2026-08-21 14:07:37 +00:00
1 changed files with 12 additions and 3 deletions
@@ -347,9 +347,18 @@ beside it. Verified by evaluating both regexes against the real file: old `false
 Control: a page carrying `superseded-by` still fails the new regex, so the assertion still asserts
 something rather than matching anything with front matter.

-**The method point, which outlives this file.** CI 2592 ran 1617 tests against the stamped tree: 1
-failed, 1616 passed. That is a stronger consumer search than any grep the three of us ran, because
-it does not depend on guessing how a consumer reads the file. **Run the suite before concluding a
+**The method point, which outlives this file.** CI 2592 ran the whole suite against the stamped
+tree, 46 turbo tasks, and returned exactly one failing spec: this one. That is a stronger consumer
+search than any grep the three of us ran, because it does not depend on guessing how a consumer
+reads the file.
+
+An earlier draft of this paragraph put a test count here, "1617 tests, 1 failed". **That number was
+wrong and it is withdrawn.** Extracting per-test totals from these pipeline logs is not reliable:
+the same regex over the same log format returns 1003 for 2592, 1022 for 2593 and 3471 for 2594,
+which are runs of the same suite. Three irreconcilable answers from one method is proof the method
+does not measure what it claims. What the log does carry reliably is the FAIL list and the turbo
+task line, so the claim is stated in those terms instead. The point never needed the count: one
+named failing spec is what refuted three hand-searches. **Run the suite before concluding a
 documentation change has no code consumers.** Two independent seats and a reviewer searching by
 hand missed the one that existed.