blog: correct the nine-gates post, one day later - #869
Merged
Conversation
Two claims in it are wrong, and using the tool it introduces is what
found them.
- one survivor was invented by the tool: it ran the FIRST control flag
a gate declares, not all of them, and the flag it picked does not
reach that gate's main verdict at all
- 'six of the nine share that exact shape' was classified by whether a
gate keeps a baseline file, not by reading what each surviving site
guards. Of 20 real sites, 7 are preconditions; 13 are ordinary
verdict branches. Closing the precondition class does not fix those
six gates, which the sentence implied
Appended rather than edited in place: the post is live on the apex and
the original claims were read by whoever read it.
Refs gHashTag/t27#2468, gHashTag/t27#2469
github-actions Bot
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 22, 2026
blog: correct the nine-gates post, one day later (#869) Two claims in it are wrong, and using the tool it introduces is what found them. - one survivor was invented by the tool: it ran the FIRST control flag a gate declares, not all of them, and the flag it picked does not reach that gate's main verdict at all - 'six of the nine share that exact shape' was classified by whether a gate keeps a baseline file, not by reading what each surviving site guards. Of 20 real sites, 7 are preconditions; 13 are ordinary verdict branches. Closing the precondition class does not fix those six gates, which the sentence implied Appended rather than edited in place: the post is live on the apex and the original claims were read by whoever read it. Refs gHashTag/t27#2468, gHashTag/t27#2469
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The post published yesterday carries two claims that do not survive a second look, and the thing that found them is the tool the post introduces.
One survivor was invented.
tri gates mutateran the first control flag a gate declares, not all of them.check_duplicate_agreement.pyhas two, and the one it picked (--self-check-drop) does not reach that gate's drift verdict at all;--self-checkkills the mutant in one line. Twenty-one sites was twenty."Six of the nine share that exact shape" was a heuristic. I classified by does this gate keep a baseline file, not by reading what each survivor guards. Of the 20 real sites, 7 are preconditions across 6 gates; the other 13 are ordinary verdict branches — including one gate's main verdict. Closing the precondition class does not fix those six gates, which the original sentence implied.
Appended as a dated correction rather than edited in place: the post is live on the apex and those claims have been read.
en + ru.
build:ciclean fromapps/website,tscclean on the blog data, typecheck ratchet reports no file gained errors.Refs gHashTag/t27#2468, gHashTag/t27#2469