c70842b6df
* feat(spec-phase): name tie-breaking/rounding mode in the edge-probe precision probe (#1102) The precision edge probe fired on numeric-range requirements but its text never named the most common rounding failure mode — tie-breaking / rounding mode (half-up vs half-to-even, ceil/floor/truncate). In an A/B experiment the weak tier (haiku) false-passed 50% of tie-class defects against the surfaced- unresolved spec; naming the rule in the probe text drove honest abstention 83%→100% (false-pass 17%→0%, haiku 50%→0%) with no category regression (precision still fires only on numeric-range). Sharpen the single TAXONOMY probe string and update every rendering together so the doc↔fixture↔machine contract (edge-probe-docs-fixtures.test.cjs) stays green: src/edge-probe.cts, the edge-probe.md taxonomy table + 2 worked examples, the 01-round-half-even and 04-money-rounding fixtures, and the resolve-edge-coverage how-to. Prose-only — no consumer keys on the probe text; SHAPE_CUES firing unchanged; fully backward compatible. * chore(changeset): Changed fragment for edge-probe precision probe text (#1108)
8 lines
672 B
JSON
8 lines
672 B
JSON
{
|
|
"items": [
|
|
{ "requirement_id": "R1", "category": "boundary", "status": "unresolved", "verification": null, "resolution": null, "reason": null, "probe": "What happens exactly at each min/max/threshold — and one step either side?" },
|
|
{ "requirement_id": "R1", "category": "precision", "status": "unresolved", "verification": null, "resolution": null, "reason": null, "probe": "Where can precision loss, overflow, or rounding/tie-breaking occur — and what is the exact contract (e.g. half-up vs half-to-even, ceil/floor/truncate)?" }
|
|
],
|
|
"coverage": { "applicable": 2, "resolved": 0, "unresolved": 2, "byVerification": { "explicit": 0, "backstop": 0 } }
|
|
}
|