@@ -97,18 +97,11 @@ The façade PRs the plan sheet named as a candidate explanation (#2178, #2222, #
9797** before** ` e624ef9d3f ` — the commit the ADR cites for its 38/29 measurement — so they cannot be
9898why that count is higher than this one; they were already in effect when 38/29 was recorded.
9999
100- This trace lands at 24 hops for both routes, matching the file-by-file trace recorded in
101- ` maintainability-review-2026-09-02.md ` during the 2026-09-02 audit ("press/Android = 24 hops
102- (5 pass-through), snapshot/iOS = 23 (6 pass-through)") to within one file — a difference plausibly
103- explained by which file either trace treats as the route's start or end boundary, not by a
104- different code path. Two independent file-by-file traces using the same unit therefore agree with
105- each other and disagree with the ADR's 38/29 by roughly 1.5x. The ADR text names no ordered chain,
106- no command/artifact, and no counting definition for 38/29, so the discrepancy cannot be resolved
107- against it; the most likely explanation is a different counting unit (e.g. counting every named
108- export or every static/type import touched, rather than distinct production files on the call
109- path) rather than a different code path, since both real traces walked the same files. ** 38 and 29
110- should be treated as superseded by the 24/24 measured here** , not as a second data point to
111- reconcile.
100+ This trace lands at 24 hops for both routes. The ADR text names no ordered chain, command/artifact,
101+ or counting definition for 38/29, so the discrepancy cannot be resolved against it. The most likely
102+ explanation is a different counting unit (for example, named exports or every static/type import
103+ touched rather than distinct production files on the call path). ** Treat 38 and 29 as superseded by
104+ the auditable 24/24 measured here** , not as a second data point to reconcile.
112105
113106## The ≤14 target
114107
0 commit comments