Additive, permanent record of an architect ruling on the TRVM constitution. This file is the canonical provenance for the ratifications below. It does not edit, rename, or re-cite any frozen historical battery (binding_run*.py, fixture.py, compiler.py). It updates only the governance index LAWS.md and the additive checker tools/laws_check.py.
Where a law is promoted to Tier A here, its provenance is this ruling, not a fabricated historical quote. The surviving citations are the witnesses that earned the invariant; this ruling is the canonical statement.
Law 4 — Every reported reduction cost must name the reduction strategy under which it was measured.
Eager/first, lazy-reference, or any later scheduler are different measurement regimes; an unlabeled step count is not an honest result. This is exactly the invariant enforced by the three surviving citations (forge/binding_run3.py:177, forge/binding_run3b.py:265, forge/binding_run3c.py:307).
Provenance: this ruling.
Law 6 — A canonical shared observable must carry every state variable that can determine future behavior; if two states can lead to different futures, their Film bytes must differ.
This unifies all surviving witnesses: different rotor state; different receipt state; different one-shot/done-latch state; and any other hidden state that changes a future transition. The later native Once work closed the temporary horizon-scoped limitation, so the law is now global.
Witnesses: forge/binding_run3k.py:32,313,325, forge/binding_run3h.py:21,285.
Provenance: this ruling.
Law 23 — A memoization key must include every dimension over which the memoized generator ranges.
A key that omits depth, size, profile, policy or another ranged dimension silently aliases different computations and can manufacture false coverage or emergence results.
Witness (candidate): TRVM_july_21_research/async-memokey-fix.patch.
Provenance: this ruling.
Laws 1, 2, 3, and 7 are marked:
RESERVED — canonical statement lostThey are not reconstructed laws. Do not invent them.
the IDs remain reserved;
they have no binding authority;
they may not be cited;
they may not be reused for new laws;
they can be restored only if real historical text is found, or a later
architect explicitly assigns a new statement.
There was no coherent numbered 20–25 series. Only the attested numbers survive:
Law 10
Law 13
Law 23
Law 26Laws 20, 21, 22, 24, and 25 are removed from the numbered law index. Their useful paraphrases are preserved in the LAWS.md appendix "Unnumbered candidate principles". They become laws only through a future explicit ratification.
Do not edit the historical binding_run*.py, fixture.py, or compiler.py merely to modernize citations or print law metadata. The additive checker is the correct enforcement layer.
For future batteries only, freeze this convention: a battery declares the laws it asserts and prints them in its final verdict, e.g.
ASSERTS_LAWS = ("L4", "L6")Do not retrofit historical files.
The LAWS.md provenance rule previously wrote the promotion direction as A→B. Promotion runs from Tier B (reconstructed) to Tier A (canonical), so the correct direction is:
B→A promotionAfter applying the LAWS.md and tools/laws_check.py edits ruled here:
python3 tools/laws_check.py --strictExpected:
RESULT: OKNo historical battery modification is needed.