mirror of
https://github.com/vitorpamplona/amethyst.git
synced 2026-08-10 08:27:04 +00:00
Claude
6147f72c81
Read gitlab.com/soapbox-pub/armada src/concord-v2/ against every finding. Two conclusions change. B2 is NOT consensus-affecting, and the warning in the last commit was wrong. Armada's foldControlState already runs the same bounded two-pass — fold once, take the banlist, re-fold with banned authors' editions excluded — arrived at independently, same shape, same CORD-04 §4 justification in the comment. This change brings us into line rather than out of it. One narrower divergence remains: they keep pass 1's banlist as final, we recompute it in pass 2, so a banned admin's mass-ban still stands for them and is dropped by us. Both defensible; ours closes an attack theirs leaves open, and the self-erasure they guard against is unreachable under the rank rule. A2's fork is resolved, in favour of the fix having been necessary. useLinkRefreshWatch2 re-posts every invite bundle on each epoch change, so the "if anything re-mints at a stable coordinate" branch is what actually happens — in any cross-client community a removed member's Amethyst client would have pulled the new root within fifteen minutes. Their catch-up is push instead: a privileged member sends a direct invite carrying the fresher root, so a human authorizes each re-admission, and useBanSelfRemove2 has a banned member's own client silently drop the community. The liveness half stands and now has two concrete options rather than an open question. Also recorded: B1 is present in Armada unfixed, in exactly the same place (bootstrapHead is unbounded, headCandidates uses it, pickHead raises the floor) — the second bug both clients share by reading one section the same way, so it goes to them in writing like the rank rule did. A1 was ours alone; they gate invite creation on CREATE_INVITE in both the hook and the page. C1 is unchanged on their side. A4 is a shared gap. And a divergence in the other direction: their banlist takes only the head's content, with no §4 re-heal union, so we honor concurrent bans they drop. B4 is marked unchecked rather than guessed at — I could not locate their recipient-set construction with confidence. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01DrJhpFhhLjuDJQNkGvYMGj