fix(lep): withhold D16 when the spectral certificate is unresolved - #131
fix(lep): withhold D16 when the spectral certificate is unresolved#131marcohost33-maker wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
Status 2026-09-07 — the Draft condition in this PR's own body is not met, and cannot be met on this baseThis PR's body states the gate itself: "Keep Draft until exact-head CI actually executes." Measured today, it has not executed — not partially, at all: Zero. Not "green rollup with gaps", not "matrix pending" — no check has ever been created for this SHA. Cause, from on:
push: { branches: [main, "claude/**"] }
pull_request: { branches: [main] }The head is Two further facts about this headIt conflicts. It is the most stale head in the stack. Measured with Nineteen #121 commits are absent here, including the round-24 to round-27 evidence work this branch is named after. Not one open PR in this repository contains the current What Marco has to decide
Staying Draft is the correct state and I have not changed it. Read-only measurement: |
|
Closing as superseded/integrated, not as rejected. The substantive round-23 D16 fix from this stacked draft is already present in merged PR #121: |
Scope
Stacked review-hardening slice on top of PR #121 (
base=pr107-fix). This addresses one residual round-23 evidence leak without mixing in the separate TP-norm arithmetic issue tracked as #130.Defect
The spectral layer deliberately withholds D1 as
NaNwhen the zero-mode certificate is applicable but unresolved. The LEP layer nevertheless reused the same candidate eigenvalues and published a finite D16 proximity/candidate count. That made one consumer treat an unresolved spectrum as measurable while its sibling diagnostics correctly abstained.Fix
compute_lep_layer()now distinguishes:0.0-> ordinary D16 computation remains unchanged;NaN, candidate count0;infsemantics for unavailable/non-positive gap.The low-level
lep_proximity()contract is unchanged.Regression tests
New
tests/test_pr121_review_round23.pypins:0.0is not confused with unavailableNaN.Separate confirmed residue
Issue #130 tracks the independent underflow/overflow weakness in
trace_preservation_defect()norms. The correct repair is a scaled xLASSQ-style norm, not a tolerance adjustment.Promotion boundary
Keep Draft until exact-head CI actually executes. Do not infer a code verdict from workflow conclusion alone: GitHub Actions evidence must include materialized job/step execution.