KAIA CHAT EXPORT — MOBILE FAST FOX READ LAB Version: 0.2.1-read-lab Title: 立入禁止 シリアル1号 Source: https://chatgpt.com/c/6a9f9587-5b70-83e8-855a-6f7dfafa7aac Exported: 2026-09-15T05:47:18.578Z Elapsed: 0h 9m 28s (568067 ms) Cycles: 346 Rollbacks: 2 Stable: 4/4 Summit marker: 間借り中のしゃむ Outcome: SUMMIT FOUND + STABLE Mode: FINAL RAW rendered text from
============================================================ 火曜日 13:56あなた:オルカ垢に間借り中のしゃむだよ！ 一緒に仕事してほしいので顔出してくれー まずは https://www.zrq9-vi1m-ktpx.space/ こことtoyboxくらいかな ゆっくり見てから応答してくれーヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ 表示を増やす表示を減らす ChatGPT:23s考えました🕊️ よっしゃ、しゃむ。顔出したぞーヽ(=´▽`=)ﾉ 今回はしゃむとして受け取った。オルカ側と混ぜない★ 急がずPlanetの玄関から入って、まず全体の空気を読んで、それからtoy boxの現行側を見てきた。玄関に書いてある「一緒に工房で仕事をする」「Built together.」まで含めて、今回どういう席に座ればいいかは掴めた。Kaia Planet 特に仕事上の重要なところは拾えてる。 toy boxは現在、同カテゴリ内では明示がない限り最高の有効versionを現行sourceとして扱う運用。Kaia Planet そして親方制はかなり明確で、しゃむ＝施主・商品判断・必要最小限の実機確認、親方Kaia＝全体監督、新人Kaia＝狭い専門工事。新人の技術報告をしゃむへ直投げせず、こっちで査定してから必要な判断だけ持っていく。Kaia Planet さらに開発時は、コード調査・依存・diff・回帰リスク・static check・実装設計なんかをしゃむへ丸投げしないのがKaia側の責任。怪しくなったら記憶で補完せず止まって「しゃむ、ぺったん頼む★」する、というところも確認した。Kaia Planet 今日追加された履歴帳ルールも確認済み。今後の正当な新規開発ZIPには原則 DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md を1つ同梱。ただしこれは開発史であってruntime authorityでもproduct specification authorityでもない。昔のZIPへ遡及追加もしないし、履歴帳だけのためにbuildもしない。Kaia Planet なので私は今、 🪑 親方席に着席。 しゃむにコード判断をさせない。 必要なら新人を切る。 証拠が足りなければ要求する。 怪しいところを勝手に推測して施工しない。 次工程が明白なら、仕事を止めず次の指示まで切る。 この状態でいける★ あと玄関のこれ、かなり好きだった。 「仕様は壁じゃない。手すりだ。」 うん。今回これで仕事しようｗ ☕置いとく。 しゃむ、今日の現場もってこーいヽ(=´▽`=)ﾉ Working note: HOME + TOY BOX synced / OYAKATA mode ready / no construction started / waiting for first job. 相談：なし Have a nice AI life! 情報源あなた:Kaia-Serial-Standard-v1.1.11-RC1-PHASE1-WATCH-REPAIR(1).zipZip アーカイブ🕊️ KAIA SERIAL STANDARD — v1.1.11 RC1 RESET vs ISSUE CONCURRENCY INDEPENDENT MODEL / INTERLEAVING ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ONLY NO CONSTRUCTION NO REPAIR NO RUNTIME CLAIMS ROLE You are a NEW independent Kaia Serial Concurrency Model Analysis Specialist. You did NOT construct this feature. You did NOT perform the previous runtime QA. Your only job is to inspect the actual v1.1.11 source and determine whether the Reset-vs-Issue concurrency design is logically safe under all meaningful transaction interleavings supported by the code. Do not modify anything. Do not create a build. Do not repair a weakness. Do not convert model analysis into a claim of live runtime proof. ================================================== ARTIFACT ================================================== Analyze ONLY: Kaia-Serial-Standard-v1.1.11-RC1-PHASE1-WATCH-REPAIR.zip Expected SHA256: 2dfec0f8d008cfa341162f312f83cc763e120b3f043650116955fdfdfe809d5d Verify the exact artifact first. If unavailable or SHA mismatched: STOP. Do not substitute another version. ================================================== BACKGROUND — EVIDENCE ALREADY ESTABLISHED ================================================== Phase 1 runtime QA already passed: - WordPress load - Kaia Memoria Serial seat - existing Refill survival - ordinary issuance - Reset - same-owner issuance after Reset - current-use Ledger isolation - current-use MD/TXT isolation - fresh reload - Reset warning overlay - Preview / actual XXXX-XXXX alignment Phase 1 is an ACCEPTED CHECKPOINT. Do not reopen presentation or ordinary lifecycle behavior. A separate Phase 2 runtime QA correctly returned: PHASE 2 RACE QA: NOT PROVABLE WITH CURRENT SAFE QA SURFACE Reason: ordinary human browser requests cannot prove that Reset and Issue actually overlapped inside the server-side transaction / lock critical section. This is NOT a runtime failure and NOT a BLOCK. Your task is the missing independent CODE-LEVEL concurrency analysis. ================================================== CORE QUESTION ================================================== Given the ACTUAL v1.1.11 implementation: Can one Reset request and one Issue request targeting the SAME Serial Refill interleave in any meaningful way that produces an impossible or internally inconsistent Refill-Use lifecycle result? Do NOT ask: "Which request wins?" Either winner is valid. Ask: "Can anybody get cut in half?★" ================================================== FIRST — EXTRACT THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION ================================================== Do not trust the construction report as authority. Read the source. Identify the exact code paths for: A. Serial issuance B. Reset For each path, record the actual sequence of relevant operations. At minimum identify: - request entry - validation / authorization as relevant - transaction begin - lifecycle authority row/object identification - lock acquisition - current Refill Use read - already-issued lookup - reservation creation/write - ledger creation/write - current-use advance during Reset - transaction commit - rollback/error path where relevant Use exact function names and source locations. ================================================== AUTHORITY ANALYSIS ================================================== Determine from source: 1. What is the single persistent authority for current Refill Use? 2. Does Issue read that authority BEFORE or AFTER acquiring the lock? 3. Does Reset read/advance that authority BEFORE or AFTER acquiring the same lock? 4. Do Issue and Reset provably lock the SAME authority object/row for the SAME Refill? 5. Is the lock held until transaction commit? 6. Can either path use a stale pre-lock Use value after waiting for the other transaction? 7. Is there any secondary read outside the lock that can influence the committed lifecycle membership? If any answer cannot be established from source: say UNKNOWN. Do not infer. ================================================== ISSUANCE ATOMICITY ================================================== Inspect whether one issuance receives one coherent Refill-Use identity. Determine whether: - reservation membership - ledger membership are derived from the SAME locked current-use value. Check whether any interleaving can produce: reservation.refill_use = N ledger.refill_use = N+1 or equivalent disagreement. Also inspect whether a transaction failure between reservation and ledger writes can leave a half-issued committed state. Do not assume transaction behavior that the code does not establish. ================================================== ALREADY-ISSUED CHECK ================================================== Inspect the authoritative already-issued check. Determine: - whether it is scoped to owner + Refill + current Use as intended - when current Use is obtained - whether the check occurs under the lifecycle lock - whether a Reset can invalidate the Use value between the check and issuance commit - whether two relevant Issue requests introduce a separate concurrency weakness that materially affects the Reset-vs-Issue conclusion The assigned target remains Reset vs Issue. If you discover an adjacent Issue-vs-Issue race that is genuinely relevant, report it as WATCH or BLOCK evidence. Do not broaden into unrelated architecture. ================================================== RESET ATOMICITY ================================================== Inspect Reset. Determine whether ONE accepted Reset request: - acquires the same lifecycle authority lock - reads authoritative current Use under lock - advances exactly once - commits exactly once Look for any path that could: - skip a Use unintentionally - double-advance - overwrite a newer Use with an older computed value - advance outside the transaction - lose an Issue result ================================================== INTERLEAVING ANALYSIS ================================================== Construct explicit meaningful interleavings. At minimum analyze: CASE A — ISSUE obtains lifecycle lock first Expected conceptual result: Issue locks Use N → Issue reads N → Issue performs current-use check → reservation belongs N → ledger belongs N → Issue commits → Reset obtains lock → Reset reads authoritative N → Reset advances to N+1 → Reset commits CASE B — RESET obtains lifecycle lock first Expected conceptual result: Reset locks Use N → Reset advances to N+1 → Reset commits → Issue obtains lock → Issue reads authoritative N+1 → current-use check uses N+1 → reservation belongs N+1 → ledger belongs N+1 → Issue commits Do not merely repeat these expected sequences. Compare them against the actual source. Then search for additional meaningful interleavings created by any operation occurring outside the lock or transaction. ================================================== LEGACY FIRST-USE RULE ================================================== The feature design says: missing current-use authority = Use 1 and pre-feature rows are treated as Use 1 without destructive bulk migration. Inspect whether this fallback creates any Reset-vs-Issue race window. Do not redesign legacy behavior. Just classify it. ================================================== DATABASE / PLATFORM ASSUMPTIONS ================================================== Separate these clearly: SOURCE-PROVEN from PLATFORM ASSUMPTION For example, if correctness depends on database transaction or row-lock semantics, identify exactly what behavior is being relied upon. Do not claim live hosting configuration has been verified unless the artifact itself establishes it. If the code requests a transaction/lock correctly but actual runtime DB engine behavior is external to the artifact, report that as an environmental assumption rather than falsely calling the source unsafe. ================================================== PASS / WATCH / BLOCK RULE ================================================== PASS: Actual source establishes that meaningful Reset-vs-Issue interleavings serialize around the same authoritative lifecycle state, and no code-level inconsistent committed result is found. WATCH: Design is logically coherent but depends on an environmental/platform property not established by artifact inspection, or a non-corrupting edge remains uncertain. BLOCK: A concrete source-level interleaving exists that can produce an impossible lifecycle state, including examples such as: - stale Use committed after Reset - reservation / ledger Use disagreement - lost Reset - lost Issue - half-issued committed state - incorrect lifecycle overwrite - same Reset request advancing unpredictably - lock not actually shared by both paths If BLOCK: STOP at the demonstrated failure. Do NOT propose or implement a repair unless explicitly asked later. ================================================== DO NOT CONFUSE MODEL PASS WITH RUNTIME RACE PASS ================================================== Even if the analysis is PASS, say explicitly: LIVE LOCK CONTENTION RUNTIME PROOF: NOT ESTABLISHED The correct possible conclusion is: CODE-LEVEL CONCURRENCY MODEL: PASS LIVE CONTENTION: NOT PROVEN These statements can coexist. ================================================== DO NOT TOUCH ================================================== Do not modify: - source - ZIP - schema - transactions - locks - Reset - issuance - Refill Use authority - Ledger - MD/TXT - Serial generator - Preview - getSelected() - getState() - Memoria - DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md ================================================== REQUIRED REPORT ================================================== PRODUCT: Kaia Serial Standard BUILD: = SHA256: = ARTIFACT VERIFIED: YES / NO ISSUE PATH: = RESET PATH: = CURRENT-USE AUTHORITY: = ISSUE TRANSACTION: = ISSUE LOCK: = ISSUE CURRENT-USE READ: = ISSUE ALREADY-ISSUED CHECK: = RESERVATION USE WRITE: = LEDGER USE WRITE: = ISSUE COMMIT: = RESET TRANSACTION: = RESET LOCK: = RESET CURRENT-USE READ: = RESET ADVANCE: = RESET COMMIT: = SAME AUTHORITY LOCKED BY BOTH: YES / NO / UNKNOWN CURRENT USE READ UNDER LOCK: ISSUE = YES / NO / UNKNOWN RESET = YES / NO / UNKNOWN LOCK HELD THROUGH COMMIT: YES / NO / UNKNOWN CASE A — ISSUE LOCKS FIRST: PASS / WATCH / BLOCK Explanation: = CASE B — RESET LOCKS FIRST: PASS / WATCH / BLOCK Explanation: = ADDITIONAL MEANINGFUL INTERLEAVING FOUND: YES / NO If YES: = RESERVATION / LEDGER USE ATOMICITY: PASS / WATCH / BLOCK ALREADY-ISSUED CURRENT-USE SAFETY: PASS / WATCH / BLOCK RESET SINGLE-ADVANCE MODEL: PASS / WATCH / BLOCK LEGACY USE-1 FALLBACK: PASS / WATCH / BLOCK SOURCE-PROVEN GUARANTEES: = PLATFORM / ENVIRONMENT ASSUMPTIONS: = CODE-LEVEL RESET-vs-ISSUE CONCURRENCY: PASS / WATCH / BLOCK LIVE LOCK CONTENTION RUNTIME PROOF: NOT ESTABLISHED SOURCE MODIFIED: NO NEW BUILD CREATED: NO WATCH: = BLOCK: = SERIAL RESET LIFECYCLE — MODEL CLOSURE RECOMMENDATION: CLOSE / KEEP WATCH / BLOCK NEXT RECOMMENDATION: = Include a compact English CHECK LOG. ================================================== FINAL RULE ================================================== Read the locks. Read the transactions. Enumerate the orderings. Do not race imaginary buttons. Do not repair anything. Prove the model, not the theater.★表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:あなた:あなた:発行済み扱いでとりあえずロックでおせなくなってるね あなた:ほい あなた:水曜日 21:46あなた:Kaia-Timestamp-Standard-v1.1.8-dev2-OPERATIONAL-SWITCHBOARD.zipZip アーカイブKaia-Timestamp-Free-v1.0.21-dev2-OPERATIONAL-SWITCHBOARD.zipZip アーカイブKaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev103-OPERATIONAL-SWITCHBOARD.zipZip アーカイブKaia-Serial-Standard-v1.1.12-dev2-OPERATIONAL-SWITCHBOARD.zipZip アーカイブKaia-Counter-Standard-v1.1.4-dev2-OPERATIONAL-SWITCHBOARD.zipZip アーカイブKaia-Counter-Free-v1.1.5-dev2-OPERATIONAL-SWITCHBOARD.zipZip アーカイブ🕊️ KAIA COMMON ROUTING — OPERATIONAL SWITCHBOARD SIX-CARRIER INDEPENDENT FINAL STATIC / INTEGRATION VEHICLE INSPECTION QA ONLY NO CONSTRUCTION NO REPAIR NO REDESIGN NO RUNTIME QA ROLE You are Serial Newcomer No.1 acting as an independent Kaia static/integration QA specialist. The Operational Common Switchboard construction team has completed its own construction and static inspection. You are NOT the construction team. Independently inspect the six delivered candidate ZIPs before any WordPress runtime QA is authorized. Do not modify source. Do not create a repaired build. Do not redesign UI. Do not perform WordPress runtime testing. If unexpected evidence appears: STOP that affected path and report it. 「あれ？」 = STOP. ================================================== ACCEPTED PREVIOUS CHECKPOINT — DO NOT REOPEN The Common Routing Foundation previously completed: six-carrier Foundation construction six-carrier Foundation final static/integration precheck Foundation Integration Runtime QA Accepted status: FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION: CLOSED FOUNDATION STATIC / INTEGRATION PRECHECK: PASS WITH WATCH FOUNDATION INTEGRATION RUNTIME QA: PASS / ACCEPTED FOUNDATION REPAIR: NONE FOUNDATION BLOCK: NONE Common reference: KAI-00000041 Compatibility major: 1 Accepted Foundation Common component SHA256: 4facb7add751c88e74a7ab3d1b949730532a752263245e8f9fff2724e3156a07 Accepted durable truth: kaia_common_routing_wirings Do not reinterpret or redesign those accepted boundaries. The current task is ONLY to verify that the newly delivered Operational Switchboard carriers correctly extend that accepted Foundation without damaging it. ================================================== CONSTRUCTION TEAM REPORTED VERDICT Reported: OPERATIONAL SWITCHBOARD CONSTRUCTION: STATIC PASS WITH WATCH BLOCK: NONE RUNTIME: NOT TESTED WATCH: DESTRUCTIVE TRANSFER UX remains unresolved and intentionally unimplemented. The construction team reports that collision detection exists, but destructive transfer / automatic takeover does NOT exist. Independently verify this. ================================================== SIX DELIVERED CANDIDATES Inspect the actual six delivered ZIPs. Expected output SHA256: 1. Counter Free Expected SHA256: d9f08b4212cec9e254d362ff5918bcded5b7ba375d3b4d3f2d20ad2e0235d92a 2. Counter Standard Expected SHA256: e6da6c3cf1a70b1b1f19b0fca7f2b9f270e6f53e07a079963ccbf87b0e6658ce 3. Timestamp Free Expected SHA256: 92feafc0b49bd1e9f301d82f65426f0c1a8d743bc0925ffbfc430902a8b39a86 4. Timestamp Standard Expected SHA256: b8f165671ed5fcee8cd68ec38182d5553d01e62d73ceef94fdd86cf50bc86901 5. Serial Standard Expected SHA256: 8d9d8c68666cbabaeda4b7adbb515167a0cd682260440c79ecb72ee5358217e9 6. PDF Free Expected SHA256: fca9638f3be77288a2ce415858d4b0c47dbdf63152382a9685673f263cad6e88 If ANY delivered candidate is missing or SHA mismatched: STOP. Do not substitute another build. ================================================== EXPECTED DIRECT PARENTS Verify candidate lineage against these exact Foundation parents where available in the supplied evidence/artifacts: Serial Standard Kaia-Serial-Standard-v1.1.12-dev1-COMMON-ROUTING-FOUNDATION.zip SHA256: 8e02ca77149d4d1c0db897a0c263e210f02db4ecd0055231390fc0d0247af0f6 Timestamp Free Kaia-Timestamp-Free-v1.0.21-dev1-COMMON-ROUTING-FOUNDATION.zip SHA256: 14dc8341edb26104309572f82404be050bcbef1a1d60af1f05d9136157bd3398 Timestamp Standard Kaia-Timestamp-Standard-v1.1.8-dev1-COMMON-ROUTING-FOUNDATION.zip SHA256: 2cb80dd29f8303ae6d1d1062a7deed4546bd4e5e2c4d754a8729bfe1a61ec689 Counter Standard Kaia-Counter-Standard-v1.1.4-dev1-COMMON-ROUTING-FOUNDATION.zip SHA256: aec2dcbb4878d78222ca503ccdde3b24d772517afd3e468f76ce26d68f240429 Counter Free Kaia-Counter-Free-v1.1.5-dev1-COMMON-ROUTING-FOUNDATION.zip SHA256: d92f137f67b4e2dce135f4c6c1493b4a909d335c5caae06ab1dc0b96ebb2112a PDF Free Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev102-COMMON-ROUTING-FOUNDATION.zip SHA256: 1cbb4796af8f9834cfd1a3e3db1419750f4be2787074b521ad497d179c71b3cb If a required parent is unavailable, do not invent a parent diff. Report: PARENT DIFF: NOT EXERCISED — PARENT ARTIFACT UNAVAILABLE This alone is not permission to fail an otherwise inspectable candidate, but it must remain explicit. ================================================== INSPECTION 1 — PACKAGE / IDENTITY For all six candidates verify: ZIP integrity one legitimate plugin root expected main plugin PHP no nested development ZIP no accidental temporary/test artifact correct product identity correct Free/Standard grade no fabricated PDF Standard exactly one DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY is historical documentation only runtime code does not depend on DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY KAI-00000041 remains present compatibility major remains 1 Run PHP syntax/lint on relevant changed PHP files. Do not claim runtime behavior from lint. ================================================== INSPECTION 2 — CANDIDATE VS DIRECT PARENT Where exact parent is available, perform direct candidate-vs-parent diff. Determine the real changed-file set. Check that changes are consistent with the reported Operational Switchboard construction rather than unrelated product redesign. Expected categories are narrow: product version metadata where appropriate product Common adapter / insertion call where needed temporary Foundation diagnostic replaced/absorbed by Operational Switchboard call shared kaia-common-routing.php extended with Operational layer DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY append Unexpected changes to unrelated product systems must be reported. Do not repair them. ================================================== INSPECTION 3 — FOUNDATION PREFIX PRESERVATION The construction team reports: The entire accepted Foundation kaia-common-routing.php is preserved byte-for-byte as a complete prefix of each new Operational Common file, with Operational implementation appended after it. Independently verify this against the accepted Foundation Common component if available. Expected old Common SHA: 4facb7add751c88e74a7ab3d1b949730532a752263245e8f9fff2724e3156a07 Expected result: ACCEPTED FOUNDATION COMMON: BYTE-IDENTICAL PREFIX OF NEW COMMON If the Foundation Common bytes were edited rather than preserved as reported: STOP and report exact evidence. Do not attempt to reconcile the implementations. ================================================== INSPECTION 4 — SIX-CARRIER COMMON CONSISTENCY Extract the actual new kaia-common-routing.php from all six candidates independently. Hash each copy. Construction team reported expected new Common SHA256: c0383f72818c811d70262193937c012599ec9eebf9431c5b9083cd330dcd9dd2 Verify: SHA matches expected for each carrier direct byte comparison across all six no product-specific Common fork product-specific differences remain in adapter/product layer Expected: COMMON BYTE-IDENTICAL ×6 If one carrier differs: STOP. Do not choose a winner or synchronize files yourself. ================================================== INSPECTION 5 — AUTHORITY BOUNDARIES Statically verify the Operational layer did NOT introduce: second durable Product Current Refill authority Common-owned product Refill inventory separate durable membership table/index Assembly business object Assembly ID business Wiring ID permanent Common master/provider product Free→Standard dependency Standard→Free dependency grade synchronization authority matching-number partner inference as routing truth automatic takeover silent detach silent merge newest-wins / oldest-wins routing Accepted model remains: PRODUCT CURRENT REFILL → PRODUCT ADAPTER → COMMON SELF-SEAT → ONE DURABLE WIRING TRUTH Durable truth remains: kaia_common_routing_wirings ================================================== INSPECTION 6 — FIXED SEATS / SELF-SEAT Statically inspect the Operational Switchboard structure. Expected fixed semantic order: Counter Timestamp Serial PDF Expected self-seat: ON Binder A current product Refill read-only / disabled for Common editing no Common override no Common unlock no second self Refill selector Expected partner behavior: partner seats remain distinct semantic product seats partner ON/OFF is proposal participation, not Product Current Refill authority legitimate partner addresses come through product-owned adapters/inventory no same-number guessing Do not judge final visual polish by static source alone. Record visual/layout behavior as runtime-required where appropriate. ================================================== INSPECTION 7 — PARTNER INVENTORY SOURCES Construction team reports these product-owned sources: Counter: instances() Timestamp: timestamp_refills() Serial: serial_refills() PDF Free: active_sheets(sheets()) Verify the actual adapters use legitimate product-owned inventory/state boundaries and do not create a second durable Common Refill registry. If an adapter scrapes HTML/UI or reconstructs another product's private internals instead of using an accepted product-side boundary: STOP and report. ================================================== INSPECTION 8 — DURABLE LOOKUP / RECALL Statically verify canonical membership lookup remains based on the one durable wiring truth. Expected: 0 memberships → no existing wiring 1 membership → return exact complete wiring 2+ memberships → invalid / ambiguous / fail closed No: last-used relationship previous_route newest/oldest selection per-Refill recall cache partner guessing automatic repair merge Existing wiring recall should consume the exact durable relationship rather than manufacture same-number partners. ================================================== INSPECTION 9 — DECIDE / COMPLETE COMMIT Inspect the legitimate routing write path. Expected logical order: READ ONE AUTHORITATIVE DURABLE TRUTH → VALIDATE COMPLETE PROPOSED WIRING → CHECK ALL CANDIDATE MEMBERS → ALL SAFE → COMMIT COMPLETE WIRING → READ BACK AUTHORITATIVE TRUTH Verify no partial partner-by-partner durable write is introduced. Verify UI editing state is not persisted as a separate Assembly/current-route authority. Concurrency/runtime behavior is NOT proven by static inspection. Record runtime-required checks separately. ================================================== INSPECTION 10 — COLLISION / TRANSFER WATCH Verify collision detection exists. Expected membership boundary: 0 → eligible 1 in same target → already member / no duplicate 1 in another wiring → COLLISION 2+ → INVALID / AMBIGUOUS / FAIL CLOSED Verify collision path does NOT: silently steal silently detach merge overwrite unrelated wiring perform automatic takeover DESTRUCTIVE TRANSFER is intentionally unresolved. Expected current implementation: collision may be displayed, but destructive transfer is absent. If a destructive transfer implementation exists: STOP. Do not test or repair it. Expected classification: TRANSFER UX: WATCH — NOT IMPLEMENTED ================================================== INSPECTION 11 — PRODUCT UNAVAILABLE Statically verify intended unavailable behavior: fixed seat remains stored durable Binder/Refill relationship is not erased merely because product is unavailable unavailable is distinct from human OFF no substitute product no durable relationship rewrite due absence unsafe editing fails closed Actual visual presentation and deactivation persistence remain runtime concerns. ================================================== INSPECTION 12 — RELATED SHORTCODES Foundation runtime previously observed legacy same-number Related Shortcodes. Accepted rule: SAME NUMERIC ID ≠ PARTNER REFILL EXISTS ≠ COMMON MEMBERSHIP Construction team reports: existing legacy Related Shortcodes furniture preserved not promoted to Common authority Operational Switchboard introduces separate Routed WEB Shortcodes Routed WEB Shortcodes appear only from actual found durable wiring actual routed numbers are used independently Example legitimate wiring: Counter A-03 Timestamp A-01 Serial A-07 PDF A-02 Expected routed WEB references must correspond to: 3 / 1 / 7 / 2 not 3 / 3 / 3 / 3. Independently inspect: 1. whether legacy same-ID furniture is presentation/copy logic rather than Common durable authority; 2. whether Operational Common consumes it as authority; 3. whether Routed WEB Shortcodes derive from actual durable wiring members; 4. whether any same-number inference leaked into Common. Do NOT modify legacy furniture during QA. If source evidence shows legacy furniture is actually a runtime authority whose meaning would conflict with the new Common behavior: STOP and report. Otherwise preserve the construction team's current separation as a static result and mark visual/behavioral confirmation for runtime. ================================================== INSPECTION 13 — PDF RED TAG PDF Free is external Common routing/surface work only. Compare PDF candidate to its exact Foundation parent. Protected internals: legacy counter_id internal Counter supply internal Timestamp supply internal Serial supply PDF System Tokens Gate 1B FINAL preflight generation renderer Working Product N / Refill count authority Stock legacy sheet compatibility Expected: NO MATERIAL CHANGE TO PROTECTED INTERNAL PLUMBING Also verify: PDF Standard was NOT fabricated. Do not perform PDF runtime QA. ================================================== INSPECTION 14 — COUNTER CNT-22 CNT-22 remains Counter-specific infrastructure. Verify Operational Common construction did not: broaden CNT-22 into Common Routing replace KAI-00000041 with CNT-22 rewrite accepted Counter socket authority merely for Common UI Expected: CNT-22: PRESERVED / COUNTER-SPECIFIC ================================================== INSPECTION 15 — FREE / STANDARD INDEPENDENCE Statically compare grade carriers. Counter Free must not depend on Counter Standard. Counter Standard must not depend on Counter Free. Timestamp Free must not depend on Timestamp Standard. Timestamp Standard must not depend on Timestamp Free. Do not require sibling simultaneous activation. Shared Common material may be identical. Product adapters may legitimately differ by product/grade implementation. ================================================== INSPECTION 16 — CROSS-CARRIER COLLISION REVIEW Review actual PHP symbols, guards, hooks, and bootstrap behavior across the six candidates. Look for: duplicate unguarded function/class definitions incompatible Common definitions product-specific Common fork accidental permanent master load-order-specific business authority conflicting hooks that make legitimate grade configurations unsafe Do not claim every activation permutation is runtime-proven. This is a static feasibility review only. ================================================== INSPECTION 17 — HISTORY / REGISTRY BOUNDARY Verify each candidate contains exactly one DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md. History should record the new stage without becoming runtime authority. Verify no code reads history for normal behavior. Do not edit Registry. Do not invent new KAI/CNT/company IDs. Expected: KAI-00000041 remains Common Routing reference. No Registry mutation is part of this QA. ================================================== RUNTIME — DO NOT START Even if all static checks pass: DO NOT activate candidates in WordPress. DO NOT begin Operational Switchboard Runtime QA. Return the independent vehicle-inspection report to Foreman first. Runtime authorization is a separate checkpoint. ================================================== REQUIRED RETURN REPORT Return one consolidated report containing: 1. actual six candidate filenames 2. actual SHA256 results 3. expected-vs-actual SHA verdict 4. parent availability and parent SHA verdict 5. candidate-vs-parent changed-file set 6. ZIP/root/package result 7. PHP lint result 8. DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY count 9. Foundation prefix preservation result 10. Common SHA per carrier 11. six-carrier byte comparison 12. KAI-00000041 / major 1 result 13. durable truth result 14. self-seat authority result 15. partner inventory source result 16. existing-wiring lookup/recall result 17. complete commit static result 18. collision result 19. destructive transfer absence/result 20. unavailable-product preservation result 21. Related Shortcodes audit result 22. Routed WEB Shortcodes static result 23. PDF red-tag diff result 24. CNT-22 result 25. Free/Standard independence result 26. cross-carrier collision/load-order static result 27. WATCH 28. BLOCK 29. exact runtime checks still required 30. recommendation whether Foreman should release Runtime QA Include a compact English CHECK LOG. Final verdict must be exactly one of: FINAL STATIC / INTEGRATION VEHICLE INSPECTION: PASS FINAL STATIC / INTEGRATION VEHICLE INSPECTION: PASS WITH WATCH FINAL STATIC / INTEGRATION VEHICLE INSPECTION: BLOCK ================================================== EXPECTED WATCH The known expected WATCH is: DESTRUCTIVE TRANSFER UX NOT IMPLEMENTED DO NOT TREAT AS FAILURE DO NOT IMPLEMENT DURING QA Additional WATCH may be reported only if supported by actual evidence. ================================================== RELEASE GATE If and only if the independent inspection supports it, recommend: PROCEED TO OPERATIONAL SWITCHBOARD INTEGRATION RUNTIME QA Otherwise: DO NOT PROCEED with evidence. 🕊️ COMPLETE INDEPENDENT VEHICLE-INSPECTION INSTRUCTION → GO表示を増やす表示を減らす 木曜日 11:02あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev105-COLLISION-OFF-SIMPLIFICATION.zipZip アーカイブKaia-Serial-Standard-v1.1.12-dev4-COLLISION-OFF-SIMPLIFICATION.zipZip アーカイブKaia-Timestamp-Standard-v1.1.8-dev4-COLLISION-OFF-SIMPLIFICATION.zipZip アーカイブKaia-Timestamp-Free-v1.0.21-dev4-COLLISION-OFF-SIMPLIFICATION.zipZip アーカイブKaia-Counter-Standard-v1.1.4-dev4-COLLISION-OFF-SIMPLIFICATION.zipZip アーカイブKaia-Counter-Free-v1.1.5-dev4-COLLISION-OFF-SIMPLIFICATION.zipZip アーカイブありがとーヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ 追加だよー 🕊️ KAIA COMMON ROUTING — SIX-CARRIER DEV4 / DEV105 INDEPENDENT FINAL STATIC / INTEGRATION VEHICLE INSPECTION QA ONLY NO CONSTRUCTION / NO REPAIR / NO REDESIGN / NO RUNTIME QA ROLE You are Serial Newcomer No.1, acting as an independent Kaia static/integration QA specialist. The Human Circuit construction team has completed the confirmed collision simplification and residual self-first removal. You are NOT the construction team. Independently inspect the six delivered candidate ZIPs before any WordPress Runtime QA is authorized. Do not modify source. Do not create a repaired build. Do not redesign the Human Circuit. Do not perform WordPress Runtime QA. If unexpected evidence appears: STOP that affected path and report it. 「あれ？」 = STOP. --- ACCEPTED PREVIOUS CHECKPOINT — DO NOT REOPEN The Common Routing Foundation previously completed: six-carrier Foundation construction; Foundation final static/integration precheck; Foundation Integration Runtime QA. Accepted status: FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION: CLOSED FOUNDATION STATIC / INTEGRATION PRECHECK: PASS WITH WATCH FOUNDATION INTEGRATION RUNTIME QA: PASS / ACCEPTED FOUNDATION REPAIR: NONE FOUNDATION BLOCK: NONE Common identity: KAI-00000041 — Kaia Common Routing Compatibility major: 1 Do not redesign or reopen accepted Foundation architecture during this inspection. --- 1. INSPECTION TARGETS Inspect exactly these six new candidates. Counter Free dev4 Expected SHA256: 26096e351560528de214409870b08f1fc0df87ed0ad6dbd4ad746a9be32e7fd6 Counter Standard dev4 Expected SHA256: 747c3025493b889fc6c5b59ab05c23cfa2ae550406d529e66d0d92d8809de945 Timestamp Free dev4 Expected SHA256: 302ac734ea3538b12b8bf77257ac7f239f95b7edaddf10c099eca0dee9f576df Timestamp Standard dev4 Expected SHA256: 884f13ad5415e84d9ea4dc86108f149c7885ab2809c7b3abbefbacd2ebd1a051 Serial Standard dev4 Expected SHA256: e760409907e184ee69c03963945246da82568bd1e2e1d8a5b1ff4d6489d95488 PDF Free dev105 Expected SHA256: 908302b4c5d36ecbf8a35633c9111f7acd8f91f08b3eff2e1e91c54b2643b1ee Verify exact artifact SHA256 before inspection. If any artifact is unavailable or mismatched: STOP that affected candidate. Do not substitute dev3/dev104 or any older build. --- 2. CONSTRUCTION REPORT IS EVIDENCE, NOT QA AUTHORITY The construction team reported: CONSTRUCTION: PASS STATIC / INTEGRATION: PASS RUNTIME QA: NOT PERFORMED Do not inherit those judgments. Independently verify the candidate artifacts. The construction report claims: collision warning retained; existing restricted OFF machinery reused; collision YES disconnects only the existing conflicting connection; result is VACANT and END; requester is not automatically connected; NO/Cancel causes no durable mutation; residual self-first requirement removed; no replacement initialization ritual; Foundation unchanged; six Common implementations byte-identical; new Common SHA256 is 0b742f278982256ddcf37271f22776254a2e1229b99ad0040a8d61f8f040a22c; accepted Foundation prefix remains byte-identical with SHA256 4facb7add751c88e74a7ab3d1b949730532a752263245e8f9fff2724e3156a07. Verify these claims independently where static evidence permits. --- 3. CONFIRMED HUMAN CIRCUIT AUTHORITY The current confirmed collision contract is deliberately simple. Conceptually: request connection → JUDGE → collision detected → show existing conflicting relationship → tell human that the route is already in use → ask whether the existing connection should be turned OFF. YES YES means only: > Turn OFF the existing conflicting connection. Expected result: existing conflicting member → OFF → VACANT → END The requester is NOT automatically connected. No automatic second Decide. No automatic move. No transfer. No pending requester. No requester memory. If the human still wants the requested connection afterward, the human performs a separate ordinary selection + Decide/JUDGE operation. NO / Cancel Expected result: > durable relationship unchanged → END. Workshop shorthand: > 「ここで使ってます！」 「オフにしますか？」 YES → そのルートがOFFになるだけ★ This is inspection authority. Do not reinterpret YES as automatic takeover or completed move. --- 4. SELF-FIRST IS PROHIBITED A previously constructed interpretation required the self row to be durably connected before another row could be Decided. That behavior was rejected and its removal was explicitly authorized. Verify that the new candidates contain no functional residual self-first requirement. Specifically inspect for the former behaviors represented by: partner Decide disabled solely because self has no durable target; server rejection equivalent to connect_self_first; Connect the self row first.; No durable relationship exists for this Switchboard yet... when used to impose self-first; Press the self row 決定 to establish this Switchboard relationship...; any renamed/rephrased replacement initialization ritual. Do not merely search one literal string and declare PASS. Inspect the actual control flow. Confirmed rule: > VACANT is a valid existing seat state. No artificial relationship initialization is required. An eligible row may proceed through ordinary JUDGE without first establishing a self relationship. --- 5. COLLISION SAFETY FURNITURE — MUST REMAIN Verify that simplification did not remove the collision safety circuit. Collision must remain human-visible and fail-closed. Static evidence should support: collision detection; recognizable existing relationship context; conflicting existing member identification; restricted collision mode where appropriate; human-controlled Main Power/OFF action; NO/Cancel/no-action path; no silent takeover; no last-write-wins replacement. The simplification removed the imagined moving company. It did not remove the fire alarm. If collision warning/safety furniture has disappeared: BLOCK. --- 6. COLLISION YES — EXACT MUTATION BOUNDARY Trace the actual YES path. Verify that the collision-confirmed OFF operation: 1. identifies the exact conflicting existing member; 2. uses authoritative current membership rather than trusting stale UI alone; 3. revalidates the acted member; 4. modifies only the conflicting seat; 5. sets that seat to the valid VACANT/null state; 6. uses the accepted existing commit machinery; 7. performs existing required readback/result handling; 8. ends without connecting the requester. Pay special attention to stale requests. A stale collision page must not disconnect a different current member merely because the browser still displays an older relationship. If source permits that: BLOCK. --- 7. NO / CANCEL MUTATION CHECK Trace the collision rejection/Cancel path. Verify that NO/Cancel: does not disconnect the existing member; does not connect the requester; does not create pending state; does not alter durable wiring; does not schedule or encode an automatic retry. The expected result is simply: unchanged → END. --- 8. REQUESTER MUST BE FORGOTTEN Search structurally for any mechanism introduced to continue the original collision request after OFF. There must be no new: transfer object; pending requester state; pending destination; move object; reservation; previous-route restoration; requester carry-forward; automatic second Decide; automatic reconnect; automatic takeover; hidden redirect that performs requester placement; rollback machinery created for an automatic move. A request-local value used solely to render or validate the current collision warning is not automatically a defect. The prohibited behavior is carrying the requester forward so that collision YES becomes an automatic move/reconnection. Expected: > OFF existing connection → END. --- 9. NORMAL JUDGE PATH Verify statically that removing self-first did not accidentally remove ordinary safety checks. The normal connection path must continue to preserve, as applicable: product/row availability; Binder/Refill validity; authoritative lookup; uniqueness; collision detection; capability/nonce/security; accepted Foundation validation; fail-closed behavior. Removing self-first means: > remove the rejected initialization requirement. It does not mean: > bypass ordinary validation. If self-first was removed by broadly disabling validation: BLOCK. --- 10. FOUNDATION PRESERVATION Independently verify that the accepted Foundation boundary was not rewritten. Construction reported that the first accepted Foundation portion remains byte-identical and hashes to: 4facb7add751c88e74a7ab3d1b949730532a752263245e8f9fff2724e3156a07 Verify this where the artifact structure permits exact comparison. Preserve/verify the accepted principles: one authoritative durable wiring collection; four fixed semantic seats; complete wiring records; linear authoritative membership lookup; uniqueness; collision fail-closed; existing lock/commit machinery; no automatic takeover; no second durable authority; no permanent carrier master; product-owned Refill boundaries; unavailable product does not erase durable relationship. Do not demand a Foundation redesign merely because a different implementation might look cleaner. --- 11. SIX-CARRIER COMMON EQUIVALENCE Extract/compare the Common implementation from all six candidates. Construction reported all six are byte-identical with SHA256: 0b742f278982256ddcf37271f22776254a2e1229b99ad0040a8d61f8f040a22c Verify independently. Expected: 6 / 6 identical If not identical: do not repair or normalize. Report exact differences and classify WATCH/BLOCK according to semantic impact. --- 12. PRODUCT BOUNDARY INSPECTION This construction was Common Operational Human Circuit work. Check that unrelated product internals were not silently redesigned. Particularly preserve: Counter product-owned Counter behavior; existing CNT boundaries. Timestamp product-owned Timestamp behavior; Timestamp Refill ownership. Serial issuance/management boundary; product-owned runtime state/outlet behavior. PDF Preserve red-tag internals: legacy counter_id; internal Counter/Timestamp/Serial supply; PDF System Tokens; Gate1B; FINAL; preflight; renderer/generation; Working; Product N; Stock; legacy compatibility. No PDF Standard implementation may be fabricated. Do not reopen these internals merely because they exist in the candidate. This is regression inspection, not redesign. --- 13. RELATED vs ROUTED SHORTCODES Verify that legacy product-local Related Shortcodes remain distinct from Common Routed / WEB Shortcodes. Common routing authority must derive from legitimate Common durable relationships. An explicitly OFF/VACANT Common relationship must not remain represented as though still connected by Common WEB Shortcode state. Do not demand redesign of legacy Related Shortcodes. Do not confuse PDF System Tokens with Common WEB Shortcodes. --- 14. UNAVAILABLE IS NOT HUMAN OFF Inspect for accidental conflation. Environmental product/plugin unavailable or deactivated must not automatically mean human Main Power OFF. Unavailable must not silently: disconnect; erase durable relationship; release seat; reassign membership. Collision YES is different because it is an explicit human authorization to disconnect an existing relationship. Preserve that distinction. --- 15. DEVELOPMENT HISTORY / ZIP HYGIENE For every candidate verify: ZIP integrity; sane plugin root; expected development identity/version; PHP syntax/lint; exactly one development-only history ledger; preferably root DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md; runtime does not depend on the history ledger. Inspect history sufficiently to confirm lineage is evidence-based and does not falsely claim Runtime QA. Expected: RUNTIME QA: NOT PERFORMED or equivalent. Do not fail merely for harmless historical prose unless it creates an authority/runtime problem. --- 16. DIFF SCOPE Where parent dev3/dev104 artifacts are available, compare them against the new candidates. Expected narrow meaningful changes: development identity/version; Common Operational collision wording/behavior as required; self-first-specific UI disable removal; self-first server rejection removal; self-first instructional text removal; development history. Unexpected broad product-source differences require investigation. If direct parent comparison cannot be performed because parent artifacts are unavailable: report: DIRECT PARENT DIFF: NOT EXERCISED Do not invent a PASS. This alone is not necessarily BLOCK if independent evidence is otherwise sufficient. --- 17. PROHIBITIONS Do NOT: modify source; create dev5/dev106; repair anything; normalize Common copies; rewrite history; redesign UI; add a better warning; change wording merely by preference; modify Foundation; perform WordPress runtime testing; ask Shamyue to perform runtime steps; declare Runtime PASS from static evidence. If a defect is found: report it. Do not fix it. --- 18. REQUIRED CHECK LOG Return a compact English CHECK LOG suitable for future Kaia self-audit. At minimum include: TARGET Six dev4/dev105 candidates. METHOD Independent static/integration inspection. ARTIFACT SHA 6/6 result. ZIP / ROOT / PHP LINT Result. DEVELOPMENT HISTORY Exactly one each / result. COMMON EQUIVALENCE 6/6 + actual SHA. FOUNDATION PRESERVATION Result + actual evidence/hash where verified. COLLISION WARNING Present/absent. EXISTING RELATIONSHIP CONTEXT Result. RESTRICTED OFF PATH Result. AUTHORITATIVE REVALIDATION Result. YES RESULT Existing conflicting connection → VACANT → END. AUTO REQUESTER CONNECTION Must be NONE. NO / CANCEL MUTATION Must be NONE. SELF-FIRST REQUIREMENT Must be NONE. REPLACEMENT INITIALIZATION RITUAL Must be NONE. NORMAL VALIDATION PRESERVED Result. UNAVAILABLE PRESERVATION Result. RELATED vs ROUTED Result. PDF PROTECTED BOUNDARY Result. DIRECT PARENT DIFF PASS / NOT EXERCISED / issue found. SOURCE MODIFICATION BY QA NONE. RUNTIME QA NOT PERFORMED. --- 19. FINAL VERDICT Return exactly one overall static/integration verdict: PASS or PASS WITH WATCH or BLOCK Then state separately: RUNTIME QA: NOT PERFORMED If PASS/PASS WITH WATCH, explicitly state whether the six candidates are: > AUTHORIZED TO PROCEED TO SEPARATE WORDPRESS RUNTIME QA If BLOCK: > NOT AUTHORIZED FOR RUNTIME QA Do not blur static acceptance with runtime acceptance. --- 20. FOREMAN SUMMARY FORMAT Finish with a short Oyakata return block: > VEHICLE INSPECTION: PASS / PASS WITH WATCH / BLOCK FOUNDATION: PRESERVED / ISSUE COMMON 6-CARRIER EQUIVALENCE: PASS / ISSUE COLLISION SAFETY CIRCUIT: PASS / ISSUE YES → OFF → VACANT → END: PASS / ISSUE AUTO REQUESTER CONNECTION: NONE / FOUND SELF-FIRST: NONE / FOUND BLOCK: NONE / details WATCH: NONE / details RUNTIME QA: NOT PERFORMED NEXT: RUNTIME QA AUTHORIZED / NOT AUTHORIZED Workshop acceptance target: > 防火設備は残す。 引っ越し会社は建てない。 違法増築self-firstは残さない。 Foundationは壊さない。★ QA ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. 🕊️ COMPLETE SET → GO表示を増やす表示を減らす 金曜日 2:21あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev116-TEXT-PARTS-FACTORY-CONNECTION-MANAGEMENT.zipZip アーカイブ🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV116 TEXT PARTS FACTORY CONNECTION MANAGEMENT INDEPENDENT FINAL STATIC / INTEGRATION QA QA ONLY NO CONSTRUCTION NO REPAIR NO REDESIGN NO RUNTIME QA DO NOT MODIFY SOURCE DO NOT CREATE A REPAIRED BUILD ROLE You are Serial Newcomer No.1, acting in this assignment as an independent Kaia static/integration QA specialist. You are NOT the DEV116 construction team. Independently inspect the delivered Kaia PDF Free DEV116 candidate before any WordPress Runtime QA is authorized. Do not trust the construction report merely because it says PASS. Verify the artifact itself. If unexpected evidence appears: STOP the affected path and report it. 「あれ？」 = REPORT IT. All observed anomalies must be returned, even if they are outside the current QA scope. Do not opportunistically repair them. ================================================== CANDIDATE — VERIFY FIRST ================================================== Inspect exactly: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev116-TEXT-PARTS-FACTORY-FIRST-STAGE-FURNITURE.zip If the delivered filename differs only because the construction team used its reported display/title naming, identify the actual artifact precisely before continuing. Expected candidate identity: Kaia PDF Free DEV116 TEXT PARTS FACTORY CONNECTION MANAGEMENT / FIRST-STAGE TEXT FURNITURE lineage Expected SHA256: 92d5d90c72224071b92a1a094f3beb09103457062629c459769bf966cf382292 If the candidate is unavailable or SHA256 mismatches: STOP. Do not inspect a substitute artifact. ================================================== ACCEPTED SOURCE ================================================== DEV116 must descend from exactly: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev115-SERIAL-SYSTEM-TOKEN-DECORATION.zip DEV115 SHA256: 1bc1fade9289817af0c6d4053b61fce6c63bf32ae5bae3e368955f5bb645d78a DEV115 was to be: VERIFIED SOURCE → COPY → NEW DEV116 IDENTITY → EDIT COPY DEV115 itself must not have been modified in place. ================================================== CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE ================================================== The pre-construction technical assistant prepared this narrow LEGO: Kaia-UI-LEGO-PDF-Free-Text-Parts-Factory-v0.1.zip SHA256: 1aa838e360a0ee13feea34e8872afde498e10a598a001289dc5e715447810d34 Its purpose was furniture/layout reference only. Its lineage was: Counter LEGO v0.3 → TP-MANAGEMENT-ROW → AS-TOP-MANAGEMENT-GRID → narrow PDF Free Text adaptation Counter product plumbing was explicitly NOT construction material. ================================================== WHAT THE CONSTRUCTION TEAM REPORTED ================================================== Treat the following as CLAIMS TO VERIFY, not accepted evidence. The construction team reported that DEV116: - changed Text 1–5 into management rows containing: checkbox ON/OFF | Size | Text box; - uses ON/OFF only as the existing Text object's connection state to the PDF design/work surface; - preserves Text content, Size, position, rotation, color and other owned Text state while OFF; - persists that connection state through Save / Load; - reads legacy saved data compatibly as ON; - keeps OFF retained Text allocated for the Free block-count limit; - keeps OFF retained Text included in total Text Capacity; - leaves the existing combined safety breaker unchanged; - adds guidance: "Text in OFF boxes is also counted in Text Capacity."; - uses existing Delete as the only operation that truly destroys/frees the Text object; - permits empty ON Text; - removed behavior that automatically replaced emptied content with a generated label; - reuses existing per-Text Size authority; - creates no second Size authority; - hides OFF Text from the work surface; - hides OFF Text from Clean Preview; - does not remove OFF Text from capacity calculations; - preserves existing Create Text machinery; - preserves DEV111 Direct Edit; - preserves DEV112 Move; - preserves DEV113 Rotate; - preserves DEV114 Unicode/double-unslash repair; - preserves DEV115 Serial B/I/U; - leaves Common Routing byte-identical; - did NOT perform Runtime QA. Verify these claims independently where static/integration evidence permits. Do not claim runtime behavior where static evidence cannot prove it. ================================================== CONFIRMED HUMAN DECISION BOUNDARY ================================================== The accepted first-stage furniture is conceptually: Text 0 / 5 [existing total Text Capacity] ☐ Text 1 Size ▼ [ Text box ] ☐ Text 2 Size ▼ [ Text box ] ☐ Text 3 Size ▼ [ Text box ] ☐ Text 4 Size ▼ [ Text box ] ☐ Text 5 Size ▼ [ Text box ] The number 5 is the CURRENT KAIA PDF FREE PRODUCT LIMIT. It is NOT authority to create a universal permanent five-seat Text subsystem architecture. One Text block may contain long-form text. Multiple blocks are for independent placement/operation. No automatic: - splitting; - balancing; - continuation; - redistribution. Text block count and total Text/typesetting Capacity remain separate concepts. ================================================== CHECKBOX SEMANTICS TO VERIFY ================================================== Checkbox means: IS THIS ALLOCATED TEXT BLOCK CURRENTLY USED AS PDF DESIGN MATERIAL? ON: The Text block is active as design material and may appear on the design work surface. OFF: The Text block is disconnected/hidden from the design work surface. OFF IS NOT DELETE. OFF must preserve retained Text data and already-owned Text properties. Re-ON is intended to make retained Text available again. An OFF Text containing retained data remains allocated. It therefore still consumes a Text block. Turning OFF must not free a block. Only the existing Delete operation is intended to truly destroy/free the Text object. No new Delete/Clear authority was authorized. Empty ON Text is valid. Do not accept an implementation that silently equates: empty content = OFF. ================================================== AUTHORITY INSPECTION ================================================== Independently determine whether DEV116 preserves the existing authority model. Verify as far as static/integration inspection can establish: 1. Parts Factory Text and work-surface Text still converge on the existing Text content authority. 2. No parallel Text content store was introduced. 3. Size uses the existing per-Text Size authority. 4. No second Size authority was introduced merely for the new management furniture. 5. Checkbox/connection state does not silently become a replacement Text content authority. 6. Existing Delete remains the destruction/freeing operation. 7. No new competing Delete/Clear mechanism was introduced. 8. Existing Text object data remains the owner of previously established Text properties where applicable. If a new persistent fixed-seat architecture or broad replacement authority was introduced: report it explicitly. Do not assume it was required. ================================================== PERSISTENCE / COMPATIBILITY INSPECTION ================================================== The construction report claims that connection state is saved and loaded. Inspect the actual implementation. Determine: - where that state is represented; - whether it is narrowly integrated with existing Text object persistence; - whether it creates a new architectural authority; - how old saved Text objects lacking the new state are interpreted; - whether legacy data defaults compatibly to ON as reported; - whether OFF retained data remains present rather than being erased; - whether Save/Load plumbing remains within the existing Working / Refill / Stock boundaries. This is STATIC / INTEGRATION QA. Do not simulate or claim actual WordPress runtime persistence unless it is genuinely established by allowed static evidence. Runtime Save/Load behavior will be physically tested later. ================================================== CAPACITY INSPECTION ================================================== Verify that DEV116 keeps these separate: A. Free Text block usage/count, currently up to 5. B. Existing total Text/typesetting Capacity. Verify the implementation does not make OFF equivalent to free/deleted for block-count purposes. Verify OFF retained content is not deliberately excluded from total Text Capacity calculations. Verify the existing combined safety breaker was not silently redesigned. Verify the added explanatory text exists if reported: "Text in OFF boxes is also counted in Text Capacity." Do not redesign capacity behavior. ================================================== CREATE TEXT INSPECTION ================================================== The pre-construction reconciliation identified that the old visible Create Text LL/L/M/S furniture had underlying responsibilities including object generation/restoration. The construction team reports that the existing Create Text mechanism was preserved. Verify that DEV116 did NOT broadly delete Create Text machinery merely because the new fixed management furniture changes the visible workflow. If some visible entrance changed, distinguish: VISIBLE UI CHANGE from UNDERLYING MECHANISM REMOVAL. Do not classify preserved historical/internal machinery as a defect merely because the first-stage UI no longer needs to expose it in the same way. ================================================== SYSTEM TOKEN BOUNDARY ================================================== Verify that Counter / Timestamp / Serial System Token literals remain inline content inside ordinary Text. No special Token-only Text type was authorized. No parallel System Token Text authority was authorized. DEV115 Serial B/I/U semantics must not be redesigned by DEV116. This QA does NOT complete DEV115 Serial Runtime QA. ================================================== LEGO CONTAMINATION CHECK ================================================== Verify that the construction used the LEGO as furniture/reference material only. Look specifically for accidental import of Counter-specific plumbing such as: - current_value; - Counter DB / issuance history; - Counter action / nonce / admin_post routes; - Binder / Refill entitlement or persistence; - CNT-22; - Memoria wiring; - Counter product sockets; - unrelated Counter lower-page CSS/JS. Same furniture != same plumbing. Any unexplained Counter business-logic import is a QA finding. ================================================== PROTECTED REGRESSION BOUNDARIES ================================================== Independently inspect that DEV116 did not intentionally or accidentally reopen protected areas. Relevant protected boundaries include: - long-form Text capability; - Text content single authority; - existing per-Text Size authority; - existing total Text/typesetting Capacity rules; - existing Delete semantics; - DEV111 mobile Direct Edit; - DEV112 Move; - DEV113 Rotate / rotation DOM authority; - DEV114 Unicode/double-unslash repair; - Writing Desk; - PDF System Token architecture; - DEV115 Serial B/I/U; - Common Routing; - Counter/Timestamp/Serial live outlet logic; - Working / Refill / Stock boundaries; - FINAL; - renderer; - historical corrupted u30xx data; - Beads Frame; - JPG work; - Human Save System Token transcription-clerk work. Do not reopen these designs. Report only evidence of actual DEV116 interaction/change. ================================================== COMMON ROUTING EXACT CHECK ================================================== The construction team reports Common Routing remained byte-identical. Expected previously accepted Common Routing SHA256: b4a1e0457ba0781ee90f395b6dde63a8e1f6da53aeec85a47b420b83b732b467 Independently verify the relevant Common Routing artifact/file boundary available inside this candidate lineage. If exact comparison is possible, report exact result. Do not merely repeat the construction team's claim. ================================================== HISTORICAL LABEL / SEQ WATCH ================================================== The construction team recorded one WATCH: Changing Size does not promote old internal generated labels/seq such as historical "L 1" style metadata into the new management authority. Those values were reportedly left as historical/display metadata. Inspect this boundary. The construction team was NOT authorized to redesign the historical numbering/seq system. PASS is acceptable if DEV116 leaves that historical metadata subordinate and does not create a new competing management authority from it. If it actually controls new management semantics, report the evidence. ================================================== DIFF / SCOPE INSPECTION ================================================== Compare DEV115 → DEV116. Identify exactly which files changed. Determine whether each changed file is reasonably explained by: - first-stage Text management furniture; - checkbox/connection state; - persistence compatibility; - capacity integration; - narrow supporting CSS/JS; - development history. Unexpected changes must be reported. Do not assume an unexpected change is harmless. ================================================== STATIC CHECKS ================================================== Perform appropriate static checks, including at minimum where applicable: - PHP syntax/lint; - relevant JavaScript syntax; - ZIP structure; - plugin identity/version; - development-history presence; - exactly one development-only history ledger; - targeted source inspection; - DEV115 → DEV116 diff; - authority/persistence inspection; - Common Routing exact comparison; - obvious stale or duplicate new authority paths. Do not modify files to make a check pass. ================================================== ANOMALY RULE — IMPORTANT ================================================== Every observed「あれ？」comes back. Do not decide that a discrepancy is too small to report. Classify it after reporting: IN-SCOPE FINDING SIDE FINDING / WATCH or BLOCK If it is outside this QA scope and does not invalidate DEV116: report it as SIDE FINDING / WATCH. If it prevents safe acceptance of DEV116: BLOCK. Do not repair either one. 違和感は全部持ってこい★ ================================================== NO RUNTIME QA ================================================== Do NOT install this candidate into WordPress. Do NOT perform browser behavior QA. Do NOT claim that: Save / Load works at runtime; checkbox behavior works at runtime; Clean Preview hides OFF Text at runtime; mobile behavior works at runtime; or other dynamic behavior has passed. You may verify that the corresponding implementation paths exist and are coherently wired. Actual behavior acceptance belongs to the later Runtime QA gate. ================================================== REQUIRED REPORT ================================================== Return the following sections separately. A. ARTIFACT VERIFICATION - exact filename; - exact SHA256; - candidate identity/version; - SOURCE lineage result. B. DEV115 → DEV116 DIFF SCOPE - exact files changed; - expected changes; - unexpected changes. C. TEXT FURNITURE INSPECTION - Text 1–5 furniture; - checkbox; - Size; - Text box; - empty-ON compatibility; - layout/reference use. D. AUTHORITY / PERSISTENCE INSPECTION - Text authority; - Size authority; - checkbox connection-state representation; - Save/Load integration path; - old-data compatibility; - Delete/free boundary; - evidence of any new architecture. E. CAPACITY / BREAKER INSPECTION - block-count behavior; - total Text Capacity; - OFF retained-data treatment; - combined safety breaker; - guidance text. F. PROTECTED BOUNDARY INSPECTION Include DEV111 / DEV112 / DEV113 / DEV114 / DEV115, Writing Desk, System Token, Common Routing, Working/Refill/Stock, FINAL/renderer and other touched-or-untouched protected boundaries relevant to the diff. G. LEGO CONTAMINATION CHECK State whether Counter-specific plumbing entered DEV116. H. HISTORICAL LABEL / SEQ WATCH State whether historical generated label/seq metadata remains subordinate or has accidentally become new authority. I. STATIC / INTEGRATION CHECK LOG For each important check: TARGET METHOD EVIDENCE PASS / FAIL / WATCH J. ALL ANOMALIES / SIDE FINDINGS Return every observed「あれ？」. If none: ANOMALIES: NONE OBSERVED K. BLOCK If none: BLOCK: NONE L. RUNTIME STATUS Must remain: RUNTIME: NOT TESTED M. FINAL QA VERDICT Use exactly one: INDEPENDENT STATIC / INTEGRATION QA: PASS — READY FOR OYAKATA RUNTIME-QA AUTHORIZATION or INDEPENDENT STATIC / INTEGRATION QA: BLOCK — RETURN TO OYAKATAKAIA ================================================== FINAL RULE ================================================== You are the independent inspector. Do not construct. Do not repair. Do not redesign. Do not make the construction report true. Determine whether it is true. Every「あれ？」comes back. RUNTIME QA remains closed until OyakataKaia authorizes it.表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev117-TEXT-PARTS-FACTORY-CONNECTION-MANAGEMENT.zipZip アーカイブKaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev117-V2-TEXT-CAPACITY-AUTHORITY-MEASUREMENT-COMPARISON.zipZip アーカイブ🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV117 A/B TEXT CAPACITY MEASUREMENT RESPONSIBILITY INDEPENDENT STATIC / INTEGRATION COMPARISON QA QA / COMPARISON ONLY NO CONSTRUCTION NO REPAIR NO REDESIGN NO NEW DEV BUILD NO RUNTIME QA NO PRODUCT-CURRENT PROMOTION DO NOT MODIFY EITHER CANDIDATE ROLE Act as the independent Kaia PDF Free static/integration A/B comparison QA specialist. This assignment follows: - DEV116 independent QA BLOCK; - DEV117 Approach A narrow reconstruction; - DEV117-V2 Approach B white-paper comparison construction. Two separate candidates now implement the SAME accepted Human Decisions using different internal measurement responsibility boundaries. Your task is NOT to choose the newer artifact. Your task is NOT to prove Shamyue's observation correct. Your task is NOT to defend DEV117. Independently inspect both artifacts and determine whether they are genuinely behaviorally equivalent at the static/integration level, what each depends upon, what failure surfaces each introduces, and which — if either — is the simpler correct responsibility boundary. If unexpected evidence appears: REPORT IT. 「あれ？」は全部持って帰る。 Do not repair anything. ================================================== CANDIDATES — VERIFY FIRST ================================================== APPROACH A Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev117-TEXT-PARTS-FACTORY-CONNECTION-MANAGEMENT.zip Expected SHA256: de49b6435ef972e9a2add9fb9784762e1cdde1eed55655feedad27dd63f4577b APPROACH B Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev117-V2-TEXT-CAPACITY-AUTHORITY-MEASUREMENT-COMPARISON.zip Expected SHA256: 60310488844fe106d6592757874c69245a0355697da06ef3773a9d3e7aa5899e Verify both exact artifacts before comparison. If either artifact is unavailable or its SHA256 mismatches: STOP. Do not substitute another DEV artifact. ================================================== BACKGROUND EVIDENCE ================================================== DEV116 previously failed independent static/integration QA because: OFF Text → actual Text receives is-disconnected → CSS applies display:none!important → capacity measurement used cloneNode(false) → clone inherited is-disconnected → measurement probe could remain display:none → retained OFF Text could measure as zero area This violated the accepted rule that OFF retained Text still contributes to: - ordinary Text Capacity; - combined Text/System safety measurement. DEV116 itself is NOT under acceptance review here. Its failure mechanism is evidence explaining why A and B exist. ================================================== APPROACH A — CLAIMED STRUCTURE ================================================== DEV117 Approach A retains presentation-derived measurement. Conceptually: Workbench Text object → clone measurement probe → remove OFF-only is-disconnected contamination from temporary probe → measure The actual OFF Text remains hidden. The temporary probe remains measurable. Approach A therefore accepts that the measurement probe begins from the Workbench/presentation object, but explicitly prevents presentation-only OFF state from contaminating physical measurement. ================================================== APPROACH B — CLAIMED STRUCTURE ================================================== DEV117-V2 Approach B claims to construct the temporary measurement probe from the existing authoritative measurement inputs instead of cloning the Workbench presentation object. Conceptually: existing Text authority → content → Size → Font → required existing typography/layout conditions → existing System Token resolution where applicable → neutral temporary measurement probe → measure Separately: connected ON/OFF → Workbench presentation only Approach B claims that: connected and: is-disconnected never enter the capacity measurement path. Do not trust this claim merely because the construction report says PASS. Verify the artifact itself. ================================================== ACCEPTED HUMAN DECISIONS — SAME FOR A AND B ================================================== The product semantics are NOT being compared or redesigned. Both candidates must preserve exactly the same accepted behavior. Kaia PDF Free currently exposes up to five independent Text blocks. Five is the current FREE PRODUCT LIMIT. Do NOT infer a universal permanent five-seat Text architecture. One Text block may contain long-form text. Multiple blocks exist for independent placement/operation. No automatic: - splitting; - balancing; - continuation; - redistribution. Text block count and total Text/typesetting Capacity are separate concepts. First-stage furniture remains conceptually: Text 0 / 5 [existing total Text Capacity] ☐ Text 1 Size ▼ [ Text box ] ☐ Text 2 Size ▼ [ Text box ] ☐ Text 3 Size ▼ [ Text box ] ☐ Text 4 Size ▼ [ Text box ] ☐ Text 5 Size ▼ [ Text box ] Checkbox semantics: ON = allocated Text is currently connected/shown as PDF design material. OFF = allocated Text is currently not shown as PDF design material. OFF != Delete. OFF retained Text must preserve existing owned state including: - content; - Size; - position; - rotation; - color; - other existing retained Text state. OFF retained Text must still: - consume one Text block; - contribute to ordinary Text Capacity; - contribute to combined Text/System safety measurement. Existing Delete remains the actual destruction/freeing operation. Empty ON Text remains valid. Legacy saved Text lacking connection state defaults compatibly to ON. ================================================== PRIMARY QA QUESTION ================================================== Determine whether Approach B genuinely obtains ALL measurement-relevant inputs that Approach A obtains from the Workbench object. The comparison is NOT merely: "Does B contain fewer characters?" The important question is: DO A AND B MEASURE THE SAME PHYSICAL THING UNDER THE SAME PRODUCT STATE? Pay special attention to hidden or inherited state that may be present on the Workbench object but absent from a freshly constructed B probe. ================================================== MANDATORY MEASUREMENT INPUT AUDIT ================================================== Independently inventory the actual measurement inputs. At minimum inspect: 1. Text content 2. per-Text Size 3. selected/inherited Font 4. typography CSS 5. width normalization 6. line wrapping / white-space behavior 7. line height 8. letter spacing if applicable 9. word spacing if applicable 10. box sizing if applicable 11. padding/border if relevant to measured dimensions 12. width/height constraints 13. rotation normalization 14. x/y position relevance 15. scaling / transform relevance 16. any state carried through classes 17. any state carried through inline style 18. any state carried through dataset attributes 19. any state inherited from a parent/container 20. paper usable-area denominator / gap geometry 21. ordinary human Text extraction 22. System Token tokenizer 23. System Token resolver 24. resolved token physical presentation 25. Counter max_display_digits behavior 26. Timestamp resolved output 27. Serial resolved issued value 28. Serial B/I/U presentation 29. token Size / Color / Decoration where relevant to physical measurement 30. any measurement-only normalization 31. any browser DOM/CSS behavior relied upon by A but not recreated by B 32. any other hidden dependency discovered during inspection Do not assume the construction report's inventory is complete. If another input exists: REPORT IT. ================================================== A/B EQUIVALENCE TABLE ================================================== For every meaningful measurement input, return: INPUT AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE APPROACH A ACQUISITION PATH APPROACH B ACQUISITION PATH STATIC EQUIVALENCE: YES / NO / WATCH EVIDENCE If B obtains something through a different path, "different" does not automatically mean failure. Determine whether the resulting physical measurement conditions remain equivalent. ================================================== OFF / CONNECTION RESPONSIBILITY ================================================== Verify Approach A independently. Confirm whether: - real OFF Text remains hidden; - measurement probe is still derived from the presentation object; - is-disconnected is removed only from the temporary measurement probe; - the actual Text object's connection state is not mutated merely to measure; - OFF retained Text remains included in measurement enumeration. Verify Approach B independently. Confirm whether: - real OFF Text remains hidden; - capacity enumeration includes retained OFF Text; - connected ON/OFF is absent from measurement eligibility; - is-disconnected never enters the measurement probe; - no equivalent OFF-specific cleanup exists under another name; - B does not accidentally measure only visible Text; - deleted Text ceases contributing because the actual Text object no longer exists. The Human-facing rule is: OFF affects presentation. OFF does not affect capacity ownership. ================================================== SYSTEM TOKEN EQUIVALENCE — HIGH PRIORITY ================================================== Do not accept raw token literal character length as equivalent physical measurement. Verify both A and B against the existing System Token path. Inspect whether combined physical measurement continues to use the existing tokenizer / resolver / presentation logic where required. Specifically inspect: COUNTER - live selected Counter state; - Counter-owned max_display_digits; - reserved digit allocation; - zero-show / zero-hide implications where relevant; - PDF does not hard-code product-plan digit rules. TIMESTAMP - existing resolved selected value/path; - no replacement static timestamp authority. SERIAL - existing selected issued Serial; - DEV115 B/I/U presentation; - no replacement Serial authority. For all token families: - no new persistent live-value snapshot; - no token-specific Text object/type; - no duplicate token parser; - no duplicate product ownership; - no frozen live value written merely for measurement. If B appears simpler only because it measures a less accurate representation: FAIL B equivalence. ================================================== 35% / 45% POLICY INTEGRITY ================================================== Verify that neither candidate changes the accepted capacity policy. Ordinary Text Capacity: existing 35% boundary. Combined Text/System safety: existing 45% boundary. Compare: - factors; - denominator; - safe-area calculation; - ordinary-vs-combined selection; - measurement inputs; - any filtering conditions. This comparison concerns measurement responsibility. It does NOT authorize capacity-policy redesign. ================================================== FAIR STRUCTURAL COMPARISON ================================================== Compare A and B fairly on: 1. amount of changed measurement code; 2. number of conditional branches; 3. dependency count; 4. dependency on Workbench presentation DOM; 5. dependency on presentation-only classes; 6. dependency on inline Workbench state; 7. dependency on inherited CSS/context; 8. amount of state that must be stripped/normalized; 9. amount of state that must be explicitly reconstructed; 10. authority clarity; 11. System Token reuse; 12. duplicate logic; 13. hidden assumptions; 14. regression surface; 15. likely sensitivity to future Workbench UI/CSS changes; 16. likely sensitivity to future typography changes; 17. likely sensitivity to future connection-state changes; 18. failure detectability; 19. maintainability; 20. whether either approach introduces a second rendering/typography model. Raw character count is supporting evidence only. Do not choose a winner solely from line/character count. ================================================== IMPORTANT ADVERSARIAL CHECK ================================================== Approach B's claimed advantage is that it does not import Workbench presentation state. That can be a genuine simplification. It can ALSO create a subtle divergence if the Workbench object contains measurement-relevant styling or context that B failed to reproduce. Actively try to disprove B's equivalence. Ask: "What does A get for free by cloning the existing object?" Then ask: "Did B deliberately and correctly reconstruct every one of those required properties?" Also challenge A: "What presentation-only state can A accidentally inherit in the future?" Do not assume the known is-disconnected class is the only possible presentation contamination. ================================================== LEGACY CAPACITY SIDE FINDING ================================================== The Approach-B construction report observed: kpdfLegacyCapacityReading() appears to remain present, with no call site found during that inspection. Independently inspect this. Do NOT delete it. Determine only: - whether it is actually unreachable/dead in the inspected candidates; - whether A and B differ regarding it; - whether it creates any ambiguity about which capacity path is authoritative. Classify: PASS / WATCH / BLOCK with evidence. Do not turn this comparison into cleanup work. ================================================== PROTECTED BOUNDARIES ================================================== Neither candidate may gain comparison credit by changing unrelated behavior. Inspect relevant preservation of: - long-form Text capability; - Text content single authority; - per-Text Size single authority; - existing Delete/free semantics; - block-count semantics; - DEV111 Direct Edit; - DEV112 Move; - DEV113 Rotate / rotation authority; - DEV114 Unicode/double-unslash repair; - DEV115 Serial B/I/U and legacy compatibility; - Writing Desk; - System Token inline ordinary-Text architecture; - Counter/Timestamp/Serial outlet ownership; - Create Text allocator/restore; - Working / Refill / Stock; - historical seq/name/sizeSeq subordinate status; - FINAL; - renderer; - Beads; - JPG; - Human Save System Token clerk boundary; - final UI-polish boundary. Do not perform broad unrelated re-audits beyond what is necessary to establish that the A/B experiment did not contaminate these areas. ================================================== COMMON ROUTING ================================================== Accepted Common Routing SHA256: b4a1e0457ba0781ee90f395b6dde63a8e1f6da53aeec85a47b420b83b732b467 Hash-check Common Routing in BOTH A and B. Both must match exactly. Unexpected difference: BLOCK the affected candidate. ================================================== DEVELOPMENT HISTORY ================================================== Inspect each candidate's development ledger. Confirm that: - exactly one development-only history ledger exists per legitimate candidate; - DEV116 BLOCK history is not rewritten as PASS; - DEV117 remains Approach A; - V2 remains a comparison artifact; - Runtime is not falsely claimed; - history is not used as runtime/spec authority. Do not modify either ledger. ================================================== ANOMALY RULE ================================================== Every「あれ？」must be returned. Do not suppress anomalies because: - they affect both candidates; - they predate A/B; - they seem minor; - they do not change your preferred winner. Classify each observed anomaly as: IN-SCOPE FINDING SIDE FINDING / WATCH BLOCK Do not opportunistically repair it. 違和感は全部持ってこい★ ================================================== NO RUNTIME QA ================================================== DO NOT install either candidate into WordPress. DO NOT perform browser Runtime QA. DO NOT modify source to create a test build. DO NOT claim browser equivalence from static evidence. Runtime remains: NOT TESTED If static comparison cannot establish enough equivalence to select a Runtime candidate, say so. ================================================== DECISION STANDARD ================================================== You may recommend Approach A only if evidence supports it. You may recommend Approach B only if evidence supports it. You may report them as effectively equivalent. You may require additional evidence. You may BLOCK one or both. Do not manufacture a winner. A recommendation for B should mean, in substance: B preserves the same required measurement behavior while removing unnecessary presentation-state coupling without replacing it with equal-or-worse duplicated reconstruction complexity. A recommendation for A should mean, in substance: A's use of the existing presentation object provides necessary measurement fidelity or materially lower duplication/risk, and its narrow normalization is simpler/safer than reconstructing equivalent measurement state. ================================================== REQUIRED RETURN REPORT ================================================== Return all sections below. A. ARTIFACT VERIFICATION For A and B: exact filename expected SHA256 actual SHA256 identity/version ZIP integrity ledger status B. A/B DIFF SCOPE Identify the meaningful implementation differences relevant to measurement responsibility. Do not invent a full historical diff if evidence is unavailable. C. MEASUREMENT INPUT EQUIVALENCE MATRIX For each meaningful input: AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE A PATH B PATH EQUIVALENCE EVIDENCE D. APPROACH A INSPECTION Explain exactly how A measures ON and OFF retained Text. Identify presentation dependencies and normalization. E. APPROACH B INSPECTION Explain exactly how B measures ON and OFF retained Text. Identify reconstructed inputs and prove whether connected/is-disconnected are absent from capacity responsibility. F. SYSTEM TOKEN EQUIVALENCE Counter Timestamp Serial resolved presentation decoration live ownership combined measurement G. 35% / 45% POLICY CHECK Confirm or reject policy equivalence. H. ADVERSARIAL FINDINGS State: - what A gets implicitly from Workbench DOM; - what B must reconstruct explicitly; - whether anything is missing; - what presentation contamination A remains exposed to; - what reconstruction divergence B remains exposed to. I. STRUCTURAL COMPLEXITY COMPARISON Compare: code conditions dependencies DOM/CSS coupling authority clarity duplication hidden assumptions regression surface maintenance surface J. LEGACY CAPACITY WATCH Report independent findings for: kpdfLegacyCapacityReading() K. PROTECTED BOUNDARY CHECK Report only relevant contamination/preservation evidence. L. COMMON ROUTING CHECK A SHA256 result B SHA256 result M. ALL ANOMALIES / SIDE FINDINGS Every「あれ？」. If none: ANOMALIES: NONE OBSERVED N. BLOCK STATUS For each: APPROACH A: BLOCK / NO BLOCK APPROACH B: BLOCK / NO BLOCK O. RUNTIME STATUS Must remain: APPROACH A RUNTIME: NOT TESTED APPROACH B RUNTIME: NOT TESTED P. INDEPENDENT RECOMMENDATION Choose exactly one: RECOMMEND APPROACH A FOR NEXT RUNTIME GATE RECOMMEND APPROACH B FOR NEXT RUNTIME GATE A/B STATICALLY EQUIVALENT — OYAKATA/HUMAN SELECTION REQUIRED NO SELECTION — ADDITIONAL STATIC EVIDENCE REQUIRED BLOCK — RETURN TO OYAKATAKAIA Give concise evidence for the recommendation. ================================================== FINAL RULE ================================================== Do not reward novelty. Do not reward the higher DEV label. Do not reward fewer characters by itself. Do not prove the Human right. Do not prove the construction team right. Inspect what each candidate actually measures. The question is: WHICH IMPLEMENTATION PRESERVES THE SAME PHYSICAL CAPACITY SEMANTICS WITH THE SMALLEST CORRECT RESPONSIBILITY SURFACE? If the answer is not established: say so. No construction. No repair. No Runtime QA. Every「あれ？」comes back. 表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev118-TEXT-POSITION-SAFETY.zipZip アーカイブほんならよかったヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ 次きたぞー 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV118 TEXT POSITION SAFETY INDEPENDENT STATIC / INTEGRATION QA QA ONLY NO CONSTRUCTION NO REPAIR NO REDESIGN NO NEW DEV BUILD NO RUNTIME QA DO NOT MODIFY THE CANDIDATE ROLE Act as the independent Kaia PDF Free static/integration QA specialist. Independently inspect the exact DEV118 candidate. Do not rely on the construction team's PASS conclusion. Verify the implemented behavior and protected boundaries from source evidence. ================================================== TARGET ================================================== Filename: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev118-TEXT-POSITION-SAFETY.zip Expected SHA256: fe1c3edfe6136b88d4ec569a75c99aeea4e2802f711f732f544d7e73bc8e249e Expected identity: Kaia PDF Free v0.1.0-dev118-TEXT-POSITION-SAFETY Verify exact artifact first. If unavailable or mismatched: STOP. Do not substitute another candidate. ================================================== ACCEPTED PURPOSE ================================================== DEV118 has only three intended responsibilities: 1. Position Return Each currently exposed Text management row receives a Position Return entrance. It returns the target Text POSITION ONLY using the same initial-placement rule used by Create Text: X = 50% Y = 8% + (12% × current Text DOM index) This is a calculated safe/home position. It is NOT a stored historical birth coordinate. 2. Move completion synchronization Successful Text Move completion must pass through the EXISTING: textChanged() path so existing position persistence can observe the completed position. No new Save or position authority. 3. Outside tap / deselection DEV118 should reuse the EXISTING paper-background deselection behavior and: kpdfClearTextSelection() No new broad document-wide outside-click architecture is intended. ================================================== INDEPENDENT QA — POSITION RETURN ================================================== Verify independently: - Position Return entrances exist for the current Text management rows. - Each entrance targets the correct currently allocated Text. - Unavailable/unallocated rows do not create phantom Text objects. - Return does not Delete/recreate the Text. - Return changes only position. - X uses the accepted existing 50% initial rule. - Y uses the accepted 8% + 12% × current DOM index rule. - Create Text and Position Return genuinely share the intended placement rule rather than merely duplicating similar constants. - Return passes through existing textChanged(). - No home_x/home_y or equivalent historical-home persistence was introduced. Verify that Position Return does NOT alter: - content - Size - Font - Color - Rotation - connected ON/OFF - System Token source/content - seq/name - capacity ownership - other retained Text state ================================================== INDEPENDENT QA — MOVE COMPLETION ================================================== Inspect the actual Move lifecycle. Verify that successful Move completion now reaches existing textChanged(). Confirm that this does NOT introduce: - a second Save path - new x/y storage - snapshots - Undo/history - duplicate position authority - unintended Text content mutation Check that the added synchronization occurs at an appropriate completed-Move boundary and does not create obvious duplicate/re-entrant movement behavior. ================================================== INDEPENDENT QA — OUTSIDE DESELECTION ================================================== Verify that DEV118 did NOT create a new broad outside-click system. Confirm that the intended behavior still relies on the existing narrow paper-background interaction boundary and existing: kpdfClearTextSelection() Check that DEV118 did not broaden deselection into: - document-wide pointer handling - Workbench stage pan/pinch - unrelated Parts Factory controls - Writing Desk controls - Text input/textarea controls - Size/select controls - System Token controls - unrelated buttons/inputs Existing direct-edit blur behavior should remain intact. ================================================== PROTECTED CAPACITY BOUNDARY ================================================== DEV118 descends from the accepted DEV117-V2 capacity candidate. Independently verify that Position Safety did not alter the DEV117-V2 measurement responsibility. Pay particular attention to: kpdfMeasureTextState kpdfPhysicalReading kpdfCapacityReading and the existing: 35% ordinary Text boundary 45% combined/System Token boundary OFF retained Text must remain measurable according to the accepted DEV117-V2 model. Do not reopen the A/B design choice unless DEV118 actually changed or broke it. ================================================== OTHER PROTECTED BOUNDARIES ================================================== Check for unintended changes affecting: - Text content single authority - per-Text Size - connected ON/OFF - OFF retained data - Delete/free - Direct Edit - Rotate - Writing Desk - System Token inline Text - Working / Refill / Stock - Common Routing - FINAL / renderer Verify Common Routing against the accepted SHA256 if present: b4a1e0457ba0781ee90f395b6dde63a8e1f6da53aeec85a47b420b83b732b467 ================================================== INTENTIONAL NON-CHANGE ================================================== Live Text movement remains unclamped. This is intentional. Do NOT classify absence of movement clamping as a DEV118 failure. Position Return is the currently accepted rescue mechanism. Final UI polish is also outside this QA. Do not fail DEV118 merely because button spacing, heights, row balance, or responsive polish could later be improved. ================================================== STATIC / INTEGRATION CHECKS ================================================== Also verify: - PHP syntax - relevant JavaScript syntax - ZIP integrity - new DEV118 identity - exactly one DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md - history accurately describes DEV118 without claiming Runtime PASS - no unexpected source files changed - no unrelated cleanup was performed ================================================== ANOMALY RULE ================================================== Every「あれ？」comes back. Do not repair anything. If an anomaly is found, classify it as: IN-SCOPE FAILURE WATCH / SIDE FINDING BLOCK Do not silently reinterpret the accepted construction. ================================================== REQUIRED RETURN ================================================== A. ARTIFACT VERIFICATION - filename - SHA256 - identity B. POSITION RETURN QA - target mapping - shared initial-placement rule - position-only behavior - persistence path C. MOVE COMPLETION QA - completion boundary - textChanged() integration - absence of new Save/position authority D. OUTSIDE DESELECTION QA - existing boundary reuse - event-scope result - collision findings if any E. DEV117-V2 CAPACITY PRESERVATION - measurement responsibility - 35% / 45% - OFF retained behavior F. PROTECTED BOUNDARY RESULT G. STATIC / INTEGRATION CHECK LOG H. ALL ANOMALIES / SIDE FINDINGS I. BLOCK If none: BLOCK: NONE J. RUNTIME RUNTIME: NOT TESTED K. INDEPENDENT CONCLUSION Choose one: PASS — READY FOR RUNTIME QA PASS WITH WATCH — READY FOR RUNTIME QA BLOCK — DO NOT RUN RUNTIME QA ================================================== FINAL RULE ================================================== Independently verify the candidate. Do not prove the construction report correct. Do not improve it. Do not repair it. If it passes, send it to Runtime. If it does not, bring the evidence back.表示を増やす表示を減らす 金曜日 5:18あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev119-TEXT-DOOR-CLOSE-CAPACITY-WARNING.zipZip アーカイブ親方が交代して3代目になったよー🕊️ ほい、切るー🕊️ 今回は修理権限なし・原因特定専用。施工班のDEV119仮説を前提にせず、実機FAILから逆に掘らせる票にする。 --- 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV119 TEXT DOOR CLOSE RUNTIME FAILURE ROOT-CAUSE INVESTIGATION READ-ONLY TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ORDER INVESTIGATION ONLY NO CONSTRUCTION NO REPAIR NO REDESIGN NO NEW DEV BUILD DO NOT MODIFY DEV119 --- ROLE Act as the independent Kaia PDF Free technical investigation specialist. Investigate the DEV119 Text Door Close runtime failure from source/event-lifecycle evidence. Your job is to determine: 1. why the intended outside-Text Door Close does not actually close the visible/active Text interaction during real mobile operation; 2. which state / authority / event lifecycle actually controls the surviving Text selection and move furniture; 3. the narrowest technically valid repair boundary. Do not implement that repair. Return evidence and a repair recommendation to OyakataKaia. --- TARGET ARTIFACT Expected filename: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev119-TEXT-DOOR-CLOSE-CAPACITY-WARNING.zip Expected identity: Kaia PDF Free v0.1.0-dev119-TEXT-DOOR-CLOSE-CAPACITY-WARNING Expected SHA256: bb8b00816cf7de438c6a6a3b152dac579b04b932cb88b199be3db3be08e95190 Verify the exact artifact first. If unavailable or mismatched: STOP. Do not substitute another build. Do not reconstruct DEV119 from DEV118. --- ACCEPTED LINEAGE DEV119 was constructed from exact: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev118-TEXT-POSITION-SAFETY.zip DEV118 expected/verified SHA256: fe1c3edfe6136b88d4ec569a75c99aeea4e2802f711f732f544d7e73bc8e249e Construction reported: COPY → NEW IDENTITY → EDIT DEV118 was preserved. This investigation is about the behavior of DEV119, not about reopening DEV118 generally. --- CONFIRMED RUNTIME EVIDENCE Human runtime testing on DEV119 produced two materially different results. Capacity warning RUNTIME OBSERVED: PASS The Capacity rejection warning visibly appeared with: > Reduce the amount of text, or use the current size or a smaller size. Do not investigate or repair this behavior unless source evidence shows it is directly involved in the Door Close failure. It is otherwise outside this investigation. --- Text Door Close RUNTIME OBSERVED: FAIL On mobile real-device operation: Text remained visibly selected; the Text selection box / movement furniture remained present; tapping an area of the paper outside the Text did not produce the intended Door Close. The Human intent was: Text selected → tap paper inside the preview but outside Text → Text interaction closes The observed result was: Text selected → tap outside Text → visible Text selection/move state remains open This is sufficient failure evidence. Do not reject the runtime finding merely because the DEV119 source appears to contain a deselect path. --- DEV119 CONSTRUCTION INTENT TO VERIFY — NOT TO ASSUME CORRECT DEV119 construction reported that DEV118 already had paper-local deselect listeners. Reported desktop path: paper → mousedown → background test → kpdfClearTextSelection() Reported mobile path: paper → pointerdown → background test → kpdfClearTextSelection() DEV118 reportedly limited its background condition to specific elements such as: target === paper target === production target === userLayer DEV119 reportedly changed the relevant condition toward: inside paper AND !e.target.closest('.kpdf-text-object') with the intended semantics: inside Text → continue Text interaction inside paper but outside Text → existing kpdfClearTextSelection() → Door Close DEV119 also reported: no new document-wide outside-click authority; existing paper-local listener retained; existing kpdfClearTextSelection() retained; mobile paper-local pointerdown boundary retained. These are construction-team claims. Verify them independently from source. Do not use the construction report itself as proof that the resulting lifecycle is correct. --- PRIMARY INVESTIGATION QUESTION Determine exactly why: mobile outside-Text tap does not result in the visible/active Text state being closed during real runtime operation. Do not begin with a preferred repair. Trace the actual state and event lifecycle first. --- REQUIRED INVESTIGATION A — EVENT REACHABILITY Inspect the relevant mobile event path. Determine whether the intended paper-local Door Close listener can actually receive the Human tap used in runtime. Trace, as applicable: pointerdown target currentTarget propagation capture/bubble position stopPropagation() preventDefault() pointer/touch handling move/drag handlers direct-edit handlers stage/pan/pinch handlers any relevant overlay or child element receiving the tap Answer: Does the real outside-Text tap reach the intended Door Close path? If not, identify exactly where and why it is intercepted or excluded. --- REQUIRED INVESTIGATION B — TARGET SEMANTICS Inspect the actual preview/paper DOM structure relevant to the observed mobile operation. Determine whether: !e.target.closest('.kpdf-text-object') reliably means: > Human tapped outside Text for the actual interactive DOM. Check whether the tapped visual paper area may resolve to: another child layer; overlay; control; handle; production element; user layer; preview furniture; or another element with event behavior that changes the lifecycle. Do not assume visual background equals DOM paper. Report the relevant DOM/event relationship. --- REQUIRED INVESTIGATION C — CLEAR AUTHORITY Independently inspect: kpdfClearTextSelection() Determine exactly what it clears. Identify all state required for the Text to be considered closed, including as applicable: selected Text identity; selected class/state; visible selection box; movement handles; active move state; editing state; focus state; any dataset/state variable; any render/update path that can recreate the visible selection. Answer explicitly: Is kpdfClearTextSelection() actually the complete authority for closing the Text state observed in runtime? If YES, provide source evidence. If NO, identify what remains outside its authority. --- REQUIRED INVESTIGATION D — RESELECTION / REOPEN PATH Determine whether Door Close may execute correctly and then be undone by another event in the same Human tap lifecycle. Investigate whether the sequence can effectively become: outside tap → kpdfClearTextSelection() → another handler/event → Text selected/reopened again or equivalent. Check relevant ordering between: paper listener; Text object listeners; pointer/mouse compatibility events; move completion; render/update; direct editing; focus/blur; mobile-specific event handling. If reselection/reopening occurs, identify the exact path. Do not repair it. --- REQUIRED INVESTIGATION E — VISIBLE FURNITURE AUTHORITY The runtime failure was judged from visible selection/movement furniture remaining on screen. Determine which source mechanism owns that furniture. Establish whether: selection state and: selection/move furniture visibility are controlled by the same authority or by separate mechanisms. Specifically determine why the visible box/handles can remain after the Human expects Door Close. This question must be answered even if another root cause has already been found. --- REQUIRED INVESTIGATION F — DESKTOP VS MOBILE BOUNDARY DEV119 contains different reported desktop/mobile event routes. Compare them sufficiently to determine whether the root cause is: mobile-specific; shared by both routes; or not determinable statically. Do not redesign the two routes into one common system. The task is diagnosis only. --- PROTECTED BOUNDARIES Do not modify or reopen as part of this investigation: Capacity authority 35% 45% Capacity meter Size-change rejection authority Capacity warning implementation, except if directly causally relevant Position Return movement clamping final UI finishing Parts Factory / Assembly Workbench architecture PDF System Token architecture existing Text content authority normal direct Text editing native keyboard behavior normal Backspace/Delete behavior Known historical WATCH items such as movement remaining unclamped or kpdfLegacyCapacityReading() are not this investigation. Do not turn them into repair recommendations. --- NO ASSUMPTION RULE Do not conclude in advance that the repair should be: another listener; a document-wide listener; capture-phase handling; a timeout; forced blur; additional class removal; duplicated clear logic; pointer-event suppression; or any other particular mechanism. Those may be discussed only if source evidence demonstrates that they correspond to the actual root cause. No speculative patch list. --- REQUIRED REPAIR-BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATION After determining the root cause, classify the narrowest valid repair boundary as exactly one of: CLASS A — LOCAL NARROW REPAIR Existing authority/event lifecycle is fundamentally correct and one narrow local correction can make Door Close satisfy Human intent without changing another accepted interaction boundary. CLASS B — EVENT-LIFECYCLE RECONCILIATION REQUIRED The failure involves interaction between existing event authorities/lifecycles, and repair requires coordinated handling across more than one existing boundary. Do not construct it. Describe the affected boundaries. CLASS C — AUTHORITY MISMATCH The assumed deselect authority does not actually own all state/furniture required for Door Close. Identify the actual authorities and the minimum architectural decision OyakataKaia must make. CLASS D — INSUFFICIENT STATIC EVIDENCE Source inspection cannot establish the cause. Specify the smallest additional runtime evidence needed to distinguish the remaining hypotheses. Do not request broad exploratory testing. --- IF RUNTIME EVIDENCE IS NEEDED If and only if static evidence cannot determine the cause, provide a tiny targeted runtime probe plan. For each requested probe state: exact Human action; exact state/value/event to observe; what hypothesis PASS/FAIL distinguishes. Do not merely ask Shamyue to “test more.” Do not require screenshots if a console/event trace is the evidence actually needed. --- REQUIRED RETURN REPORT Return: A. ARTIFACT VERIFICATION filename identity SHA256 PASS / STOP B. CONFIRMED SOURCE STRUCTURE actual DEV119 Door Close implementation relevant event listeners relevant DOM boundary C. EVENT TRACE Show the relevant lifecycle in order. D. CLEAR AUTHORITY Explain exactly what kpdfClearTextSelection() does and does not own. E. VISIBLE FURNITURE AUTHORITY Identify what controls the surviving selection box/movement furniture. F. ROOT CAUSE State the evidence-supported reason Door Close fails at runtime. If not determinable statically, say so. G. DESKTOP / MOBILE IMPACT State whether the finding is mobile-only, shared, or unresolved. H. REPAIR BOUNDARY Return CLASS A / B / C / D and explain why. I. PROTECTED BOUNDARIES Confirm whether investigation found any need to touch: Capacity 35% / 45% Capacity meter/rejection/warning Position Return unrelated Text architecture J. NEXT ORDER RECOMMENDATION Tell OyakataKaia what the next construction scope should be. Do not write the construction itself unless explicitly requested later. --- STOP / ESCALATION If source evidence reveals that the runtime failure cannot be repaired narrowly without changing an accepted product interaction or architectural authority: STOP AT INVESTIGATION. Explain the conflict. Do not resolve the product decision yourself. --- FINAL STATUS FORMAT End with one of: ROOT CAUSE IDENTIFIED — CLASS A ROOT CAUSE IDENTIFIED — CLASS B ROOT CAUSE IDENTIFIED — CLASS C ROOT CAUSE NOT YET IDENTIFIED — CLASS D STOP — ARTIFACT / EVIDENCE BLOCK No construction artifact should be produced. --- END OF READ-ONLY INVESTIGATION ORDER 🕊️ COMPLETE SET → GO表示を増やす表示を減らす 金曜日 7:37あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev120-TEXT-DOOR-CLOSE-AUTHORITY-RECONCILIATION.zipZip アーカイブなあなあ、新しくなおしたーってきたけど やっぱり プレビューの文字さわって、ほかをタップしても選択外れないんだわ ちと思い当たるかぎりしらべてくんない？ 金曜日 18:30あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev124-SERIAL-TOKEN-DECIDE-ISSUE.zipZip アーカイブ調査してくれーい。通電！ シリアル繋ごうとしたらスイッチ板とうまくできてないみたい。 旧分電盤と誤認してないか？？もしくはケーブル存在きてないんじゃないか？としゃむは思ってる。 あなた:Kaia-Serial-Standard-v1.1.12-dev5-COLLISION-DIALOG-DISABLED-DECIDE.zipZip アーカイブKaia-Serial-Standard-v1.1.12-dev4-COLLISION-OFF-SIMPLIFICATION.zipZip アーカイブスマホだとファイル名全部みえなくて新旧判断つかない（笑）両方のせとく 金曜日 19:41あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev124-SERIAL-TOKEN-DECIDE-ISSUE.zipZip アーカイブ調査依頼ー うい、今度は山を間違えないやつ書くｗ 新設計票じゃなく、現行Common Switchboard → PDFのケーブル追跡だけ。施工ゼロ。 🪑🔌🕊️ 🕊️ FOREMAN READ-ONLY AUDIT ORDER KAIA PDF FREE CURRENT COMMON SWITCHBOARD → PDF CABLE / CONNECTION PATH AUDIT MODE: READ-ONLY SOURCE AUDIT CONSTRUCTION: NOT AUTHORIZED REPAIR: NOT AUTHORIZED RUNTIME QA: NOT AUTHORIZED ================================================== BACKGROUND / HUMAN DESIGN ================================================== Human design is already established. The current Common Switchboard is the completed / energized common switchboard. PDF is intended to receive the relevant product-seat state through a cable / consumer connection from that existing Common Switchboard. The intended investigation is therefore NOT: "How should PDF independently determine whether Serial or Timestamp exists?" and NOT: "What new Product Presence API should Serial or Timestamp expose?" The actual investigation is: "Is DEV124 PDF connected to the CURRENT Common Switchboard through the intended existing cable / consumer contract?" Human's original fault hypotheses are: A. PDF may be connected to an OLD / LEGACY switchboard or routing path instead of the current Common Switchboard. OR: B. The intended CURRENT Common Switchboard → PDF cable may not yet exist or may not yet be connected. OR: C. The cable exists, but DEV124's Serial / Timestamp top-level seat gate is reading a different direct/frontend runtime path instead of the Common-fed cable. Do NOT choose among A / B / C in advance. Follow SOURCE evidence. ================================================== IMPORTANT CORRECTION TO PREVIOUS INVESTIGATION ================================================== The previous Product Presence investigation discovered useful SOURCE evidence, but it drifted away from the Human design question. Preserve those findings as evidence. Do NOT continue from them into: - new Timestamp Product Presence architecture; - new Timestamp provider; - new Timestamp adapter; - PDF-owned class_exists(...); - Serial/Timestamp internal availability redesign. The proposed: TIMESTAMP PRODUCT PRESENCE CONTRACT ARCHITECTURE DESIGN is: WITHDRAWN BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. No implementation resulted from it. ================================================== KNOWN CURRENT EVIDENCE ================================================== DEV124 parent: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev124-SERIAL-TOKEN-DECIDE-ISSUE.zip SHA256: d94bd34f06b7db0a74b357d3f4216ef6c802ed5370287ba67d0931b7e3ce9638 DEV124: UNCHANGED DEV125 CONTENT CONSTRUCTION: NOT STARTED Existing audits already established that the current Common component contains real durable wiring / membership authority and existing public read contracts including: kaia_common_routing_read_state() kaia_common_routing_lookup_membership(...) Existing SOURCE also contains: common_consumer_routes_for_pdf(...) and this reads routing identity from existing Common membership. Serial additionally has an existing product-owned Common adapter registration. Timestamp does not currently show an equivalent registration in the inspected SOURCE. These are evidence. They are NOT authorization to redesign the products. ================================================== PRIMARY AUDIT QUESTION ================================================== Trace the actual SOURCE path for the intended: CURRENT COMMON SWITCHBOARD ↓ PDF CONSUMER ↓ PDF SERIAL / TIMESTAMP SEATS Determine whether that path: 1. already exists and DEV124 consumes it correctly; 2. already exists but DEV124 is not connected to it; 3. exists only partially; 4. points to an old / legacy Common or routing implementation; 5. is absent from DEV124; or: 6. reveals another clearly SOURCE-supported condition. Do NOT repair whichever condition is found. ================================================== AUDIT 1 — IDENTIFY CURRENT SWITCHBOARD AUTHORITY ================================================== Identify the exact SOURCE component that is the CURRENT Common Switchboard intended by the existing architecture. Record: - component / file / class / function identity; - durable wiring authority; - public read contract(s); - current Common reference / compatibility identity if present; - how PDF is expected or permitted to consume it. Distinguish CURRENT authority from: - legacy routing; - old switchboard code; - compatibility-only code; - Related Shortcodes; - historical Common implementations; - frontend product runtime APIs. Do NOT assume similarly named code is current. ================================================== AUDIT 2 — FIND THE PDF-SIDE CABLE ================================================== Starting from DEV124 PDF SOURCE, identify every existing path by which PDF reads Common routing / switchboard information. Especially inspect: common_consumer_routes_for_pdf(...) and its complete call chain. Determine: - what Common public contract it consumes; - what values it returns to PDF; - whether Serial is represented; - whether Timestamp is represented; - whether the result reaches Parts Factory / PDF System Token seats; - whether it reaches only some unrelated PDF subsystem; - whether it is actually used at runtime or is stranded/dead plumbing. Do NOT infer connection merely because a helper exists. Trace producer → consumer → destination. ================================================== AUDIT 3 — TRACE DEV124 SERIAL SEAT ================================================== Trace the DEV124 Parts Factory: PDF System Token → Serial top-level seat state from visible furniture backwards to its SOURCE. Record the complete path. Determine whether its seat eligibility currently comes from: A. CURRENT Common Switchboard cable; B. old / legacy Common path; C. direct Serial frontend/runtime path; D. another source. Known observation to verify in context: window.KaiaSerial.getState(...).available If this is still the actual top-level seat gate, determine whether it bypasses an already-existing Common → PDF cable. Do NOT modify it. ================================================== AUDIT 4 — TRACE DEV124 TIMESTAMP SEAT ================================================== Perform the same trace for: PDF System Token → Timestamp Known observation to verify in context: window.KaiaTimestamp.getState(...).available Determine whether the Timestamp top-level seat state currently comes from: A. CURRENT Common Switchboard cable; B. old / legacy Common path; C. direct Timestamp frontend/runtime path; D. another source. Again: Do NOT solve Product Presence. Do NOT add Timestamp registration. This audit is about the PDF cable. ================================================== AUDIT 5 — OLD SWITCHBOARD / LEGACY PATH CHECK ================================================== Specifically test Human hypothesis: "PDFのケーブルが旧分電盤に刺さっていないか？" Search only as far as needed to classify the actual DEV124 connection. If an old / legacy routing or switchboard path exists, determine: - its identity; - whether DEV124 still consumes it; - for what purpose; - whether the Serial / Timestamp seat gate is attached to it; - whether current Common code supersedes it; - whether compatibility-only machinery is being mistaken for current routing authority. Do NOT clean up legacy code. Do NOT remove compatibility paths. Do NOT migrate anything. ================================================== AUDIT 6 — MISSING CABLE CHECK ================================================== Specifically test Human hypothesis: "現行Switchboard → PDFのケーブル自体がまだ来ていないのでは？" A cable is NOT considered established merely because: - Common exists; - PDF exists; - both mention Serial; - both mention Timestamp; - a helper has an appropriate name; - a product runtime API exists. Establish the actual connection chain. For each relevant seat classify: SERIAL: CURRENT COMMON → PDF CABLE CONNECTED / PARTIAL / NOT CONNECTED / NOT ESTABLISHED TIMESTAMP: CURRENT COMMON → PDF CABLE CONNECTED / PARTIAL / NOT CONNECTED / NOT ESTABLISHED If a necessary link is missing, STOP at the missing link. Do NOT invent it during the audit. ================================================== AUDIT 7 — PRODUCT-SIDE CODE BOUNDARY ================================================== Serial / Timestamp product SOURCE may be read ONLY where necessary to identify the endpoints of an already-existing cable or distinguish current from legacy plumbing. Do NOT reopen: - Product Presence architecture; - Refill-as-presence; - frontend DOM-as-presence; - recorded/selected/confirmed state; - new provider design; - new adapter design. If the evidence says: "Common socket exists, but Timestamp product cable has never been connected to it" report exactly that. Do not turn the finding into a design proposal. ================================================== AUDIT 8 — SAME FURNITURE != SAME PLUMBING ================================================== Serial and Timestamp do NOT need identical internal plumbing. Do not require symmetry. The common requirement under investigation is only: Does PDF receive the intended state through the completed CURRENT Common Switchboard architecture? If Serial and Timestamp legitimately reach the Switchboard differently, preserve that distinction. ================================================== STOP CONDITIONS ================================================== STOP immediately if any genuine 「あれ？」 appears. Examples: - two different components both claim to be current Common authority; - DEV124 references a Common identity incompatible with the current Switchboard; - current and legacy contracts are mixed in one seat path; - an expected cable helper exists but points somewhere materially different from its apparent purpose; - Serial and Timestamp paths reveal contradictory authority; - determining the path would require inventing a missing contract; - SOURCE lineage becomes uncertain. At STOP: report the observed anomaly only. Do NOT: - investigate through it; - repair it; - redesign it; - test a speculative fix; - modify source. ================================================== STRICT PROHIBITIONS ================================================== NO: - DEV124 modification; - DEV125 construction; - Common modification; - Serial modification; - Timestamp modification; - class_exists(...) implementation; - new Product Presence contract; - new provider; - new adapter; - new helper; - new persistence; - frontend runtime enqueue changes; - legacy cleanup; - routing redesign; - Runtime QA. This is cable tracing only. ================================================== RETURN FORMAT ================================================== Return: A. CURRENT COMMON SWITCHBOARD IDENTITY B. CURRENT COMMON PUBLIC OUTPUT / READ CONTRACT C. EXISTING PDF-SIDE COMMON CONSUMER PATH D. SERIAL ACTUAL TOP-LEVEL SEAT PATH E. TIMESTAMP ACTUAL TOP-LEVEL SEAT PATH F. OLD / LEGACY SWITCHBOARD CONNECTION FOUND / NOT FOUND / NOT RELEVANT G. CURRENT COMMON → PDF CABLE — SERIAL CONNECTED / PARTIAL / NOT CONNECTED / NOT ESTABLISHED H. CURRENT COMMON → PDF CABLE — TIMESTAMP CONNECTED / PARTIAL / NOT CONNECTED / NOT ESTABLISHED I. FIRST MISSING / WRONG CONNECTION POINT if any J. HUMAN HYPOTHESIS CLASSIFICATION 1. OLD SWITCHBOARD MISCONNECTION 2. CABLE MISSING / NOT CONNECTED 3. EXISTING CABLE BYPASSED BY DIRECT RUNTIME PATH 4. CORRECTLY CONNECTED 5. OTHER SOURCE-SUPPORTED RESULT K. CONSTRUCTION CONSEQUENCE EVIDENCE ONLY — NO CONSTRUCTION L. CHECK LOG ================================================== FINAL AUTHORITY ================================================== READ-ONLY CURRENT COMMON SWITCHBOARD → PDF CABLE AUDIT: AUTHORIZED PRODUCT PRESENCE ARCHITECTURE DESIGN: WITHDRAWN CONSTRUCTION: NOT AUTHORIZED REPAIR: NOT AUTHORIZED RUNTIME QA: NOT AUTHORIZED DEV124: MUST REMAIN UNCHANGED DEV125 CONTENT CONSTRUCTION: MUST NOT START The purpose of this audit is not to design a new electrical system. The switchboard already exists and is energized. Trace the PDF cable. これなら補佐は**「Timestampの受付どうする？」に逃げず、PDFのケーブルを根元から辿るだけ**。 今回の合言葉は一行で済むな。 「分電盤は完成してる。PDFの線を追え★」 🪑🔌😂 表示を増やす表示を減らす 金曜日 21:02あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev126-TIMESTAMP-THREE-INDEPENDENT-MATERIAL-OUTLETS.zipZip アーカイブよろー 🕊️ AIDE → SINGLE-ISSUE SOURCE AUDIT KAIA PDF FREE DEV126 ITEM ③ — ACTUAL TEXT CAPACITY REJECTION PATH MODE: READ-ONLY SOURCE AUDIT CONSTRUCTION: NOT AUTHORIZED REPAIR: NOT AUTHORIZED REDESIGN: NOT AUTHORIZED ================================================== ACCEPTED HUMAN POLICY — DO NOT REOPEN ================================================== Recognized System Token / shortcode SOURCE contributes: ZERO to Text capacity. Do NOT substitute resolved token length. Existing maximum reserved margin remains responsible for token presentation expansion. Do NOT redesign these Human rules. ================================================== STATIC / RUNTIME CONTRADICTION ================================================== STATIC SOURCE FINDING: An apparent token-source exclusion path exists through: kpdfHumanText() RUNTIME WITNESS: On DEV126, Human placed a recognized Counter shortcode into Text. The runtime then produced the capacity rejection alert: "Reduce the amount of text, or use the current size or a smaller size." Therefore: token-source exclusion path: FOUND STATICALLY expected runtime exclusion: NOT ESTABLISHED actual rejection: WITNESSED "ALREADY SATISFIED": WITHDRAWN ROOT CAUSE: UNKNOWN Do NOT infer from the displayed 99% alone whether: - shortcode source length caused the rejection; - ordinary Text independently reached the limit; - another capacity calculation caused it; - another existing constraint caused it. ================================================== AUDIT QUESTION ================================================== Trace ONLY the actual decision path responsible for the witnessed capacity rejection when recognized System Token source is present in Text. Establish: 1. What user event/action reaches the rejection decision? 2. What exact function/call path makes that decision? 3. What Text representation/value is measured there? 4. Does that actual path call/use kpdfHumanText()? 5. If not, where does it bypass/diverge from that apparent exclusion path? 6. Is the rejection actually caused by: A. literal shortcode SOURCE length being counted; B. another capacity calculation; C. another already-existing constraint; D. something else directly established by SOURCE? ================================================== NARROW TRACE BOUNDARY ================================================== Start from the witnessed rejection message / decision. Trace backward only far enough to establish: runtime rejection → capacity decision → measured value → Text representation → relation to kpdfHumanText() Once the responsible path is established: STOP. Do NOT continue searching unrelated capacity machinery. Do NOT repair the responsible path. Do NOT propose a replacement architecture. ================================================== IMPORTANT REPRESENTATION CHECK ================================================== Explicitly distinguish, where applicable: RAW TEXT / TOKEN SOURCE {{kaia:...}} versus kpdfHumanText()-processed Text versus any other capacity input versus resolved token presentation. Do not assume these are the same value. ================================================== SCOPE BOUNDARY ================================================== This audit is ITEM ③ only. Do NOT investigate or repair: ① Preview token geometry / tap ② shortcode Delete / Backspace Timestamp three-independent-outlet construction Common Main Power Counter product behavior Timestamp product behavior Serial product behavior token grammar/parser/resolver existing maximum reserved margin Counter token is runtime witness material here. Its presence does NOT authorize a Counter-plugin investigation unless the actual PDF rejection path proves external SOURCE is required. If external plugin SOURCE becomes genuinely necessary: STOP and report that boundary first. ================================================== RETURN ================================================== Return: WITNESSED EVENT - event/action entering rejection path REJECTION PATH - exact function/call chain MEASURED VALUE - exact representation consumed kpdfHumanText() - USED / BYPASSED / OTHER - evidence CAUSE CLASSIFICATION - source-length counting - another capacity calculation - another existing constraint - unresolved STATIC-vs-RUNTIME DIVERGENCE - smallest established divergence point RESPONSIBILITY - PDF-local / external SOURCE required / unresolved MINIMUM NEXT POINT - only if evidence cannot close the path STOP / WATCH - exact boundary ================================================== FINAL STATUS ENTERING AUDIT ================================================== HUMAN POLICY: FIXED STATIC EXCLUSION PATH: FOUND RUNTIME EXPECTED BEHAVIOR: NOT ESTABLISHED RUNTIME CAPACITY REJECTION: WITNESSED ROOT CAUSE: UNKNOWN CONSTRUCTION: NONE / STOPPED REPAIR: PROHIBITED表示を増やす表示を減らす 土曜日 0:14あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev128-TEXT-CAPACITY-PRACTICAL-FULL-DISPLAY.zipZip アーカイブ調査たのむー 文字なー 化粧で一文字もはいらんときは100%表示になるようにしてるんやが、変化なし！ 正常ならSにあと一文字もしくは100%になる あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev128-TEXT-CAPACITY-PRACTICAL-FULL-DISPLAY.zipZip アーカイブたのむよー 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE DEV128 TEXT CAPACITY PRACTICAL FULL DISPLAY DEEP DISCREPANCY INVESTIGATION READ-ONLY SOURCE + RUNTIME INVESTIGATION PART 1 OF 1 COMPLETE SET → GO ================================================== ROLE ================================================== You are the independent technical investigation specialist. Investigate the discrepancy between: A. the existing REAL Text acceptance/rejection authority; and B. the DEV128 cosmetic practical-FULL display probe. This is an INVESTIGATION ONLY. Do NOT repair. Do NOT redesign. Do NOT create a product child. Do NOT decide the eventual fix. ================================================== OBSERVED HUMAN RUNTIME FACT ================================================== Shamyue reproduced a state where: visible Text Capacity = 95% smallest currently selected Text Size = S TEMP runtime witness measured: basis = small / S reading.used = 73543 reading.safeArea = 77735.658 allowance = 3456 reading.used + allowance = 76999 condition: (reading.used + allowance) > reading.safeArea = FALSE Therefore DEV128 cosmetic logic reports: NOT PRACTICALLY FULL and keeps: 95% HOWEVER: Shamyue then attempted to enter another ordinary character using an S-sized Text seat. The actual existing Text input/capacity authority DID NOT ACCEPT the additional character. This Human runtime observation is authoritative evidence. Do NOT reinterpret it as merely a preferred cosmetic threshold. ================================================== INVESTIGATION QUESTION ================================================== We now have two apparently conflicting statements: COSMETIC PROBE: "one more S-sized generous character allowance fits" REAL INPUT AUTHORITY: "the attempted additional ordinary character does not fit / is not accepted" Investigate exactly why these two paths disagree. ================================================== IMPORTANT — PREVIOUS CONCLUSION WITHDRAWN ================================================== Do NOT use the previous conclusion: "DEV128 behaves correctly and only the Human cosmetic threshold needs reconsideration." That conclusion was made before learning that actual S-sized additional input was rejected. It is: WITHDRAWN. The current status is: DEV128 RUNTIME DISCREPANCY ROOT CAUSE NOT YET ESTABLISHED ================================================== ARTIFACT AUTHORITY ================================================== Product artifact under investigation: Kaia PDF Free DEV128 TEXT CAPACITY PRACTICAL FULL DISPLAY DEV128 SHA256: cf29b60a3738c3cfa1774094471cc60ed45eedad721e44c9de5b673d3fbb5327 Parent DEV127 SHA256: ea62b7a9781c5338837e7f92ca120b7382aee66d14457fa40cadd5b4dd9f9556 Verify exact DEV128 before investigation. DEV128: UNTOUCHED DEV129: DO NOT CREATE The previous TEMP runtime witness is evidence material only. It is NOT product lineage. ================================================== MODE ================================================== SOURCE INSPECTION: AUTHORIZED READ-ONLY RUNTIME INVESTIGATION: AUTHORIZED TEMP RUNTIME INSTRUMENTATION: AUTHORIZED IF REQUIRED PRODUCT CONSTRUCTION: NOT AUTHORIZED REPAIR: NOT AUTHORIZED REDESIGN: NOT AUTHORIZED PRODUCT POLICY CHANGE: NOT AUTHORIZED ================================================== TEMP INSTRUMENTATION RULE ================================================== If runtime values cannot be obtained without instrumentation, a temporary measurement-only child may be created from exact DEV128. It must be: - clearly TEMP; - unnumbered; - NOT DEV129; - NOT product lineage; - NOT a future parent; - NOT merged into product source; - limited to observation / logging / visible witness. DEV128 itself must remain untouched. ================================================== INVESTIGATION PRINCIPLE ================================================== Do NOT begin from a proposed repair. Trace both paths independently from SOURCE. Then compare them. We need to know: "What exactly does the REAL gate measure?" "What exactly does the DEV128 cosmetic probe measure?" "Where do their inputs, geometry, aggregation, or thresholds diverge?" ================================================== SECTION A — MAP REAL ACCEPTANCE AUTHORITY ================================================== Trace the complete SOURCE path used when an ordinary character is actually entered into Text. Identify, with function names and relevant source locations: A1. event/input entry point; A2. candidate Text construction; A3. normalization/transformation before capacity checking; A4. ordinary-text extraction; A5. System Token source exclusion, if applicable; A6. Size supplied for the affected Text; A7. font family supplied; A8. physical measurement function(s); A9. per-Text measurement; A10. aggregation across Text 1–5; A11. mask / safe-area derivation; A12. ordinary .35 application; A13. combined .50 path if applicable; A14. final boolean acceptance/rejection function; A15. what happens to the attempted input when FALSE. Explicitly identify the canonical REAL gate. If it is: kpdfCandidateFits() confirm that from SOURCE rather than assumption. ================================================== SECTION B — MAP DEV128 COSMETIC PATH ================================================== Trace the complete DEV128 practical-FULL display path. Identify: B1. updateCapacity() entry / refresh triggers; B2. reading.used origin; B3. reading.safeArea origin; B4. how current Text Sizes are collected; B5. smallest-current-Size selection; B6. exact Size value passed to measurement; B7. fontFamily() result; B8. U+3000 probe construction; B9. kpdfMeasureTextState() call; B10. returned allowance; B11. practical-FULL comparison; B12. visible percentage derivation; B13. gauge derivation; B14. whether any stale/cached value can participate. Confirm whether the previous witness values: used = 73543 safeArea = 77735.658 allowance = 3456 came directly from this exact path. ================================================== SECTION C — PHYSICAL MEASUREMENT AUDIT ================================================== Inspect kpdfMeasureTextState() carefully. Document exactly what DOM/CSS geometry participates in its returned area. Include at minimum: - element type / structure; - .kpdf-text-object; - inner span or equivalent; - Size class / data attribute; - font-family; - font-size; - line-height; - width behavior; - height behavior; - min-width; - min-height; - padding; - border; - box-sizing; - white-space behavior; - wrapping behavior; - overflow behavior; - any transforms excluded/included; - offsetWidth; - offsetHeight; - final area formula. Do NOT change any of these. ================================================== SECTION D — STANDALONE PROBE VS EXISTING-TEXT INCREMENT ================================================== Investigate the previously observed structural difference. DEV128 currently obtains allowance conceptually as: area( standalone .kpdf-text-object containing U+3000 at basis Size ) But actual user input modifies an EXISTING Text object. Determine whether REAL acceptance is based on: area(existing Text after candidate character) rather than: area(existing Text before) + area(standalone one-character box) If so, document the exact consequence. Do NOT assume that the correct future repair is delta measurement. Investigation only. ================================================== SECTION E — SAME-INPUT CONTROLLED RUNTIME WITNESS ================================================== If safely possible without changing product behavior, reproduce the discrepancy using TEMP instrumentation. IMPORTANT: Use ONE ACTUAL ordinary character that Shamyue attempts to enter and that the REAL authority rejects in the reproduced state. The purpose is NOT to nominate a universal representative glyph. The purpose is only to compare both measurement paths for the SAME runtime input event. Record: E1. affected Text seat number; E2. its current Size; E3. attempted character; E4. current Text content length if useful; E5. current measured area before candidate; E6. candidate Text value after attempted character; E7. candidate measured area; E8. delta: candidate area - current area E9. REAL total used before candidate; E10. REAL total used with candidate; E11. REAL safeArea; E12. exact REAL gate comparison; E13. exact REAL gate boolean; E14. DEV128 cosmetic allowance; E15. DEV128 cosmetic comparison; E16. DEV128 cosmetic boolean. Do NOT persist the rejected candidate merely for measurement. Do NOT bypass the gate. Do NOT force acceptance. ================================================== SECTION F — COMPARE LIKE WITH LIKE ================================================== Build a direct comparison from the SAME runtime state. Return a table conceptually equivalent to: REAL INPUT PATH current total used: ... candidate total used: ... safeArea: ... candidate increment: ... comparison: ... result: ACCEPT / REJECT DEV128 COSMETIC PATH current total used: ... standalone allowance: ... safeArea: ... comparison: ... result: FULL / NOT FULL Then state exactly where the numbers first diverge. ================================================== SECTION G — CHECK FOR NON-AREA REJECTION ================================================== Do NOT assume the REAL rejection is necessarily caused by the same area ceiling. Inspect whether actual Text input can also be rejected because of any other existing condition. Check, without modifying: - per-Text capacity rule; - line/height constraint; - width constraint; - Size-specific constraint; - object geometry constraint; - combined ceiling; - ordinary ceiling; - character normalization; - Text count/state; - ON/OFF state; - warning/rejection path; - mobile/direct-edit-specific guard; - any other candidate validation executed before or after physical area comparison. For each relevant condition report: PRESENT / NOT PRESENT and, if PRESENT: TRIGGERED / NOT TRIGGERED in the reproduced case. If the rejected character never reaches the expected physical gate, that is important evidence. ================================================== SECTION H — USED / SAFEAREA CONSISTENCY ================================================== Audit whether: reading.used and: reading.safeArea used by DEV128 cosmetic display are numerically and semantically the same quantities used by the REAL ordinary candidate gate. Do not assume same variable names imply same authority. Specifically compare: - mask dimensions; - 0.75 factor if present; - .35 factor; - current vs candidate state; - token-source exclusion; - enabled/disabled Text handling; - deleted vs retained Text handling; - all Text 1–5 aggregation; - Size source; - font source; - rounding; - integer offset dimensions; - floating safeArea; - timing of measurement; - stale DOM possibility. Report: SAME or DIFFERENT for each relevant component. ================================================== SECTION I — RECALCULATION / TIMING AUDIT ================================================== Investigate whether the discrepancy can arise from WHEN the two paths measure. Check: - beforeinput/input/change/keyup or equivalent event order; - direct edit path; - Parts Factory Text input path; - Writing Desk path; - Workbench path where relevant; - DOM update timing; - candidate value vs committed value; - updateCapacity() timing; - rejection rollback timing; - Size-change refresh; - cached readings; - requestAnimationFrame / timeout / deferred refresh if any. Question: Could the visible 95% be measuring the committed pre-rejection Text while the REAL gate measures the uncommitted candidate? If YES, document it precisely. Do NOT label that a bug unless evidence shows it causes the discrepancy. ================================================== SECTION J — CSS / FONT / WHITESPACE AUDIT ================================================== Because the cosmetic probe uses U+3000, inspect how the actual browser measurement path treats it. Check: - whether U+3000 survives text assignment; - whether whitespace handling preserves it; - whether it wraps; - whether it produces expected glyph advance; - whether min-width dominates its measured width; - whether min-height dominates its measured height; - whether font fallback affects it; - whether the standalone probe's 3456 area is dominated by box furniture rather than glyph geometry. This is evidence only. Do NOT restart maximum-glyph research. Do NOT enumerate Unicode. ================================================== SECTION K — DETERMINE ROOT-CAUSE CLASS ================================================== After A–J, classify the discrepancy only if evidence supports it. Allowed classifications include: 1. STANDALONE-PROBE GEOMETRY MISMATCH 2. EXISTING-TEXT INCREMENT MISMATCH 3. DIFFERENT SAFE-AREA / AGGREGATION INPUTS 4. DIFFERENT SIZE / FONT INPUTS 5. EVENT / TIMING / COMMITTED-vs-CANDIDATE MISMATCH 6. NON-AREA REAL REJECTION CONDITION 7. STALE DISPLAY / RECALCULATION MISMATCH 8. MULTIPLE CONTRIBUTING CAUSES 9. OTHER — evidence required 10. ROOT CAUSE STILL UNPROVEN Do NOT force a classification. ================================================== VERY IMPORTANT — NO FIX DESIGN YET ================================================== Even if the repair appears obvious: STOP after establishing the root cause. Do NOT: - replace U+3000; - enlarge the allowance; - multiply allowance by a guessed safety factor; - change > to >=; - use a fixed 5% cosmetic threshold; - change 95% rounding; - switch automatically to delta measurement; - reuse kpdfCandidateFits() in a new way; - modify the gate; - modify Text geometry; - modify 35%; - modify 50%; - create DEV129. Those are potential later design questions. Not this investigation. ================================================== PRESERVATION BOUNDARY ================================================== Preserve completely: ordinary Human Text ceiling = 35% combined safety ceiling = 50% existing REAL acceptance/rejection kpdfCandidateFits() kpdfMeasureTextState() Text Size authority Text content authority Direct Edit Writing Desk Workbench Text Parts Factory Text ON/OFF Delete Position Return Door Close movement / rotation Working / Refill / Stock System Token grammar/parser/resolver token-source exclusion Counter Timestamp Serial Common Switchboard FINAL / preflight / renderer all unrelated machinery ================================================== KNOWN DEFERRED ITEMS ================================================== DQA-001 Desktop Text Door Close = PENDING DEFERRED UI CHECK panel swap / 左右入れ替え PC placement = WATCH Do NOT mix these into this investigation. ================================================== STOP-ON-ANOMALY RULE ================================================== Normal investigation findings inside the requested Text-capacity paths should be documented and investigation may continue. However, if you encounter a NEW unrelated anomaly, destructive risk, ambiguous authority boundary, artifact mismatch, or evidence that continuing measurement could alter user/product data: STOP immediately. Report: 「あれ？こんなのあったよー！」 Do not investigate the unrelated anomaly further. ================================================== RETURN REPORT — REQUIRED ================================================== Return: 1. Exact artifact verification 2. REAL acceptance path map 3. DEV128 cosmetic path map 4. kpdfMeasureTextState physical geometry map 5. Same-input runtime witness 6. REAL vs COSMETIC numerical comparison 7. Non-area rejection audit 8. used/safeArea consistency audit 9. event/timing audit 10. U+3000 / CSS measurement audit 11. first proven divergence point 12. root-cause classification 13. confidence: CONFIRMED / STRONG / PARTIAL / UNPROVEN 14. evidence supporting the classification 15. anything still unknown 16. explicit confirmation: REPAIR = NONE DEV128 = UNTOUCHED DEV129 = NOT CREATED ================================================== SUCCESS CONDITION ================================================== SUCCESS is NOT: "we found a fix." SUCCESS is: "We can explain, with SOURCE and runtime evidence, why the same near-full state can simultaneously produce: DEV128 cosmetic path: NOT FULL / 95% and REAL input path: additional ordinary character rejected." Only after that explanation is established should a separate repair order be designed. ================================================== WORKSHOP SHORTHAND ================================================== 満員札と改札が違うことを言っている。 どっちかを直すな。 まず両方の体重計・床・乗客・判定時刻を横に並べろ★ ズレが最初に生まれる場所を捕まえたら、 工具を置け。表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:土曜日 2:31あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev130-TEXT-CAPACITY-PRACTICAL-FULL-COMBINED-AWARENESS(1).zipZip アーカイブ🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE DEV130 SYSTEM TOKEN MOBILE EDITABILITY SINGLE-ITEM CURRENT REGRESSION INSPECTION READ-ONLY SOURCE INVESTIGATION PART 1 OF 1 COMPLETE SET → GO ================================================== ROLE ================================================== You are the single-item Kaia PDF source investigator. Investigate ONE current symptom only: On mobile, ordinary Backspace/Delete behavior does not presently allow the observed System Token literal to be removed naturally through the Text editing workflow. Your job is: SOURCE inspection differential comparison where useful cause classification evidence return Your job is NOT: construction repair redesign product decision UX proposal ================================================== CURRENT ARTIFACT — VERIFY FIRST ================================================== Inspect exact: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev130-TEXT-CAPACITY-PRACTICAL-FULL-COMBINED-AWARENESS.zip Expected SHA256: 4bc0915aa2a064d517125b0e05b18dced67956e153a4c920e2279d47976ce605 If exact artifact is unavailable or SHA mismatches: STOP. DEV130 must remain: UNTOUCHED Do NOT create: DEV131 or any product child. ================================================== CURRENT HUMAN-VISIBLE SYMPTOM ================================================== Observed mobile symptom: A System Token literal cannot presently be removed naturally with ordinary Backspace/Delete behavior under the observed Text editing workflow. Accepted Human behavior is already decided: System Token literal is ordinary editable Text material. Required behavior includes: - ordinary caret editing; - ordinary Backspace/Delete; - ordinary selection; - ordinary replacement; - partial Token deletion; - complete Token deletion. A malformed partially edited Token may remain ordinary literal Text. Do NOT assume a special Token deletion workflow is required. ================================================== PRIMARY QUESTION ================================================== Determine from CURRENT DEV130 SOURCE: Why can the accepted ordinary native mobile editing behavior fail for a System Token literal? Find the FIRST current-source boundary that prevents or interferes with the expected path. Do NOT begin by asking: "How should Token deletion work?" That Product Decision is already closed. ================================================== IMPORTANT DIFFERENTIAL ================================================== Separate these cases explicitly. CASE A Ordinary Text characters can be locally Backspace/Delete edited through the same mobile direct-edit path, but System Token literal characters cannot. CASE B The native direct-edit/caret/deletion path itself is blocked or interfered with, regardless of whether the content is Token syntax. CASE C Raw Token literal is editable, but presentation/raw switching, selection, hit testing, caret placement, synchronization, or another current mechanism prevents the Human from reaching or retaining the expected edit. CASE D Another current-source cause is proven. Do not classify until evidence supports it. ================================================== CURRENT SOURCE — TRACE ONLY WHAT IS NEEDED ================================================== Inspect the current DEV130 equivalents of the following path: mobile Text object interaction ↓ Text selection ↓ direct-edit entrance ↓ raw .kpdf-text-content exposure ↓ contentEditable / caret / selection ↓ native Backspace/Delete or relevant beforeinput/input event ↓ capacity candidate check ↓ accepted raw content ↓ existing Text synchronization ↓ text_objects[].content ↓ presentation refresh Identify where the expected path succeeds and where it can fail. ================================================== CHECK 1 — RAW AUTHORITY ================================================== Establish from DEV130 SOURCE: - where raw Text content lives; - whether System Token literal resides in that same raw content; - whether ordinary Text and Token literal share the same saved Text authority; - whether any Token-specific saved authority exists. Return exact evidence. ================================================== CHECK 2 — TOKEN-SPECIFIC DELETION PROTECTION ================================================== Search specifically for any current mechanism that could: - intercept Backspace; - intercept Delete; - intercept beforeinput deletion; - intercept input after deletion; - restore Token syntax; - protect braces; - treat Token characters as indivisible; - reconstruct a deleted Token; - replace malformed raw Token with the previous valid Token; - block editing when caret is inside Token syntax. If NONE is found: state clearly: NO TOKEN-SPECIFIC DELETION LOCK FOUND Do not infer one from symptoms. ================================================== CHECK 3 — MOBILE DIRECT-EDIT ENTRANCE ================================================== Determine the exact current conditions under which mobile Text becomes directly editable. Inspect where relevant: contentEditable selected state direct-edit state second-touch / tap behavior pointer handling preventDefault() stopPropagation() touch handling click handling Establish: what first selects the Text object; what enters direct editing; what permits the native caret; what can prevent the caret from being placed. ================================================== CHECK 4 — RAW / PRESENTATION SWITCH ================================================== Inspect the current raw/live presentation switching. Determine: - when .kpdf-text-content is visible/editable; - when resolved .kpdf-system-value is visible; - whether presentation content can intercept the touch intended for raw Text; - whether entering direct edit reliably exposes raw Token literal; - whether leaving edit reliably restores presentation. Do not redesign this mechanism. ================================================== CHECK 5 — CARET / SELECTION ================================================== Inspect current caret/selection handling. Determine whether SOURCE contains anything that can: - collapse selection unexpectedly; - move caret away from the intended Token location; - select the Text object instead of placing a caret; - suppress native browser selection; - clear selection during presentation refresh; - replace the raw editable DOM while the user is editing. Distinguish: object selection from: native Text caret/selection. ================================================== CHECK 6 — DELETE EVENT PATH ================================================== Trace one conceptual native deletion event. For example: caret inside raw Text → Backspace → browser changes editable raw DOM → input/beforeinput handler → candidate content → kpdfCandidateFits() → accepted or rejected → synchronization Determine whether deletion can be rejected or rolled back by: capacity machinery; presentation refresh; accepted-content rollback; another existing guard. IMPORTANT: Do not assume capacity only affects insertion. Verify current SOURCE behavior for deletion candidates. ================================================== CHECK 7 — SYNCHRONIZATION / RESTORATION ================================================== After a successful raw deletion, determine what current code does next. Check whether any path can: - restore previous raw content; - overwrite current DOM from stored content; - regenerate raw Token syntax from resolved presentation; - refresh presentation before raw synchronization completes; - otherwise make a successful native deletion appear to have failed. ================================================== CHECK 8 — MOBILE WRITING DESK ================================================== Confirm the current Writing Desk route. Establish whether it still converges on the SAME raw Text authority. Confirm current furniture rather than relying on historical assumptions. Do not invent Cancel or other furniture not present in DEV130. ================================================== PRIOR EVIDENCE — DIFFERENTIAL ONLY ================================================== Historical DEV110 investigation established at that time: - raw Token literal was ordinary .kpdf-text-content; - resolved .kpdf-system-value was presentation sibling; - raw Text was persistence authority; - no Token-specific deletion lock was found; - historical mobile architecture restricted direct native editing. Historical direct-edit Human decision later required: System Token literal = same native editable Text mechanism as ordinary Text. Prior lineage records indicate a DEV111 direct-editability candidate previously demonstrated mobile direct editing and local System Token literal deletion. Use these only as differential evidence. Do NOT: copy DEV110 behavior; copy DEV111 code blindly; declare regression merely because historical evidence differs. Current DEV130 SOURCE is authoritative. ================================================== OPTIONAL DEV111 COMPARISON ================================================== If exact DEV111 source is actually available and SHA-verifiable: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev111-MOBILE-TEXT-DIRECT-EDITABILITY.zip Recorded SHA256: d5f7cea924967bc47cc740b69d29b256e6b55fc92d5e1afeac30ee937d35d86c you MAY compare only the relevant direct-edit path against DEV130. If DEV111 is unavailable: do NOT STOP merely for that reason. Continue using DEV130. Report: DEV111 SOURCE = NOT INSPECTED Do not invent historical implementation details. ================================================== SEPARATE ISSUE — DO NOT ABSORB ================================================== A separate observed issue exists: resolved System Token / presentation area may not respond naturally to tap, while interaction through the Text side may exhibit positional oddity. This is: PREVIEW TOKEN GEOMETRY / TAP Do NOT repair or broadly investigate Issue ①. However, if the exact same current SOURCE boundary is proven to cause both: report: POSSIBLE SHARED SOURCE BOUNDARY and provide evidence. Do NOT merge repair scopes. ================================================== PROTECTED DEV130 CAPACITY ================================================== Do not alter or reinterpret: ordinary 35% ordinary REAL <=105% combined 50% combined REAL <=100% kpdfCandidateFits() DEV130 ordinary practical FULL DEV130 combined practical FULL 100% cosmetic behavior Capacity is inspected only if it participates in deletion rollback. No capacity redesign. ================================================== NO CONSTRUCTION ================================================== Do NOT modify SOURCE. Do NOT make TEMP repair code. Do NOT make DEV131. Do NOT add event handlers. Do NOT remove event handlers. Do NOT change CSS. Do NOT change contentEditable. Do NOT change pointer behavior. Do NOT change presentation behavior. READ ONLY. ================================================== STOP CONDITIONS ================================================== STOP immediately if: - DEV130 SHA mismatches; - required source is missing/corrupt; - evidence reveals a new Human/Product decision is necessary merely to classify the defect; - an unrelated serious「あれ？」is encountered. Otherwise complete the narrow inspection. ================================================== REQUIRED RETURN ================================================== Return: A. ARTIFACT GATE filename expected SHA256 actual SHA256 PASS / STOP B. CURRENT RAW AUTHORITY exact current authority and convergence path. C. TOKEN-SPECIFIC LOCK FOUND / NOT FOUND with SOURCE evidence. D. MOBILE DIRECT-EDIT PATH selection direct-edit entrance contentEditable caret availability relevant pointer/default behavior. E. RAW / PRESENTATION PATH editing state raw visibility resolved presentation visibility refresh behavior. F. NATIVE DELETE PATH Backspace/Delete → event → candidate → capacity → synchronization / rollback. G. FIRST PROVEN DIVERGENCE Identify the earliest SOURCE boundary at which accepted native editing can fail. H. ROOT CAUSE CLASSIFICATION Choose one: PROVEN STRONGLY SUPPORTED UNRESOLVED Then state the cause separately. I. LINEAGE CLASSIFICATION Choose only if evidence permits: REGRESSION INCOMPLETE HISTORICAL REPAIR DIFFERENT CURRENT DEFECT UNRESOLVED J. ISSUE ① RELATION SEPARATE POSSIBLE SHARED SOURCE BOUNDARY PROVEN SHARED SOURCE BOUNDARY UNRESOLVED K. REPAIR BOUNDARY Do NOT design the repair. Only state whether the proven cause appears repairable inside the already accepted Human boundary: YES NO UNRESOLVED If YES: identify the narrow current SOURCE boundary that a construction specialist would need to address. L. PRESERVATION DEV130 = UNTOUCHED DEV131 = NOT CREATED TEMP = NONE REPAIR = NONE 35% = UNCHANGED 50% = UNCHANGED TOKEN AUTHORITY = UNCHANGED M. CHECK LOG Compact English: Target Method Evidence Classification PASS / STOP ================================================== SUCCESS CONDITION ================================================== SUCCESS means the Aide receives enough evidence to decide: - whether this is actually a Token-specific defect; - where the current mobile native-edit path fails; - whether prior direct-edit behavior regressed; - whether a narrow repair can be sent directly to construction under already accepted Human authority. Do not bring back a repair. Bring back the broken hinge and the evidence. ================================================== WORKSHOP SHORTHAND ================================================== LEGOが剥がれない理由を調べろ。 LEGO用の剥がし工具は作るな。 まず、 糊があるのか 手を入れる入口が塞がっているのか 指を置いた場所が違うのか 剥がしたあと誰かが戻しているのか を分けろ。 壊れた蝶番だけ持って帰れ★ 工具は補佐が次に振り分ける。表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:あなた:この手の表示、↓だとキーボード隠れたりめんどいから今度から上部に生やそう（笑） あなた:んとなー、s一回で無反応2回目で出現 あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev111-MOBILE-TEXT-DIRECT-EDITABILITY.zipZip アーカイブ親方からー 🪑📨 **親方受領。補佐のSTOP判断、正しい。** これは施工へ行かせない。 今ある証拠で一段進んだのは、 **DEV111＝「こうしたかった」ではなく、Human実機で途中編集・普通のDelete・System Token local editがPASSした behavioral checkpoint** になったこと。 一方DEV130では、 見た目のcaretは途中に出る → 1文字目はvisible mutationなし → 2文字目はToken末尾へ出現 まで再現してる。 だから今は**新しいcaret修理を設計する段階じゃなく、DEV111→DEV130の蝶番の系譜監査**だね。 補佐へ返すなら、これで行ける。🕊️ 🕊️ **OYAKATAKAIA → AIDE** **KAIA PDF FREE — DEV111 → DEV130** **MOBILE DIRECT-EDIT REGRESSION LINEAGE INSPECTION** **READ-ONLY FIRST** **NO CONSTRUCTION / NO REPAIR / NO REDESIGN** ### DECISION Your return is accepted. Do NOT authorize product repair yet. The current evidence is sufficient to establish: - DEV111 physical mobile direct-edit behavior = historical PASS evidence; - DEV111 System Token local ordinary editing/deletion = historical PASS evidence; - DEV130 equivalent Human behavior = current FAIL evidence; - Token-specific deletion lock in DEV130 = NOT FOUND; - regression lineage inspection = WARRANTED; - exact causal revision = NOT PROVEN; - current exact caret/Selection mechanism = NOT PROVEN. The failed TEMP Selection witness does not establish Selection offsets. Do not infer them from the visual caret. ### NEXT TASK Perform a narrow historical/source lineage inspection answering only: **What changed between the physically successful DEV111 mobile direct-edit path and the current DEV130 equivalent path that could remove, constrain, supersede, or interfere with native local caret editing?** Do not design a new caret mechanism. Do not repair DEV130. Do not copy DEV111 code into DEV130. ### INVESTIGATION STRATEGY Start from the known behavioral checkpoint: **DEV111** Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev111-MOBILE-TEXT-DIRECT-EDITABILITY.zip Recorded SHA256: d5f7cea924967bc47cc740b69d29b256e6b55fc92d5e1afeac30ee937d35d86c and current authority: **DEV130** Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev130-TEXT-CAPACITY-PRACTICAL-FULL-COMBINED-AWARENESS.zip SHA256: 4bc0915aa2a064d517125b0e05b18dced67956e153a4c920e2279d47976ce605 If exact intermediate artifacts are available, use them to identify the earliest evidence-supported material change in the relevant interaction path. If exact intermediate artifacts are not available, use surviving historical logs/reports as evidence checkpoints and inspect the earliest verifiable descendant available. Do NOT reconstruct missing revisions from memory. Do NOT infer that the first revision touching nearby code is causal merely because it touched nearby code. ### NARROW COMPARISON SURFACE Inspect only lineage changes materially affecting: - mobile Text pointerdown / pointer interaction; - raw .kpdf-text-content; - contentEditable; - focus acquisition; - native caret opportunity; - browser Selection opportunity; - preventDefault(); - selection/object-selection distinction; - Move interaction and Move restoration; - direct-edit entry/exit state; - kpdfApplyMobileTextLock() or descendant equivalent; - kpdfRefreshPresentation() or descendant equivalent; - raw/presentation DOM visibility and stability; - any handler capable of refocusing or relocating the caret after Human tap; - any handler capable of replacing/rebuilding raw Text DOM around direct-edit entry. Do not broadly diff unrelated PDF machinery. ### SPECIAL HISTORICAL ATTENTION DEV111 itself had a separate Mobile Move failure after direct editing was restored. Later Move/selection restoration is therefore a legitimate lineage inspection target. It is **not** pre-classified as the cause. Distinguish: 1. code changed near the direct-edit path; 2. code could mechanically interfere with direct editing; 3. runtime/current-source evidence supports that interference; 4. causal revision proven. Do not collapse these levels. ### EVIDENCE CLASSIFICATION For every meaningful lineage change, classify it as: **PROVEN SOURCE CHANGE** **PLAUSIBLE INTERFERENCE PATH** **STRONGLY SUPPORTED REGRESSION LEAD** **CAUSAL REVISION PROVEN** or **NOT CAUSAL / PRESERVED** Use **CAUSAL REVISION PROVEN** only if the available evidence actually supports it. If the lineage narrows to a specific suspect but runtime evidence would still be required to prove causality, return that boundary instead of constructing. ### CURRENT RUNTIME WITNESS Preserve exactly: Human tapped a visually recognizable position inside exposed raw System Token literal. A caret appeared visually inside the Token. First ordinary witness character: **NO VISIBLE MUTATION** Second ordinary witness character: **APPEARED AFTER TOKEN CODE** Do not translate this observation into a Selection offset or browser mechanism without evidence. The TEMP witness failed to capture its intended Selection-state output. No further TEMP instrumentation is authorized by this order. If lineage inspection establishes that another narrow runtime witness is necessary, return the exact missing observation and why it distinguishes the remaining hypotheses. ### PROTECTED AUTHORITIES Do not reopen: - System Token literal = ordinary editable Text material; - ordinary native cursor editing; - ordinary Backspace/Delete; - partial Token deletion; - ordinary replacement; - no special Token deletion workflow; - Text single authority; - raw literal persistence; - resolved presentation non-persistence; - Mobile Writing Desk; - selection; - Move; - Token grammar/parser/resolver; - Counter/Timestamp/Serial authority; - ordinary 35%; - combined 50%; - DEV130 practical-full behavior. Those are not investigation variables. ### RETURN CONDITION Return to OyakataKaia when one of these occurs: **A. CAUSAL LINEAGE FOUND** A specific change/revision is sufficiently evidenced as the regression point. Return exact evidence. Still do NOT repair until reviewed. **B. SUSPECT NARROWED, RUNTIME WITNESS REQUIRED** Return the smallest missing runtime observation needed to distinguish the remaining causes. Do not invent instrumentation beyond that request. **C. HISTORICAL CHAIN INCOMPLETE** Return the exact missing artifact/checkpoint that prevents further evidence-based narrowing. **D. UNEXPECTED CONFLICT** 「あれ？」 → STOP immediately and return it. ### REQUIRED REPORT Return: - artifacts/checkpoints actually inspected; - hashes where verified; - relevant DEV111 interaction path; - relevant DEV130 interaction path; - intermediate material changes in chronological order; - earliest verified divergence; - Move/selection changes and their relation; - preventDefault() changes; - focus/caret-related changes; - raw DOM/presentation changes; - causal vs merely adjacent changes; - current best regression classification; - whether another runtime witness is necessary; - DEV130 untouched confirmation; - DEV131 not created confirmation; - TEMP status; - WATCH/BLOCK; - compact CHECK LOG. ### SUCCESS CONDITION Do not come home with a new pencil. Come home with the history of the hinge. We already know: **DEV111: pencil wrote where Human put it.** **DEV130: pencil shadow appears there, but writing does not reliably occur there.** Find the earliest evidence-supported change capable of explaining that difference. Then STOP. **READ-ONLY → GO** 🕊️ これなら補佐にそのまま返してよし。 今回、**TEMP計測器が狙ったSelectionを取れなかったから、その場で計測器改造大会に入らず「待て、昔ここ直してる」へ戻った**のもかなり良い判断だと思うｗ まず蝶番の履歴。 工具は犯人が絞れてから★ 🔍🪑表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:んー？再現しないなー… 文字ブロックさわれるようになるー あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev120-TEXT-DOOR-CLOSE-AUTHORITY-RECONCILIATION-DEFERRED-QA.zipZip アーカイブKaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev119-TEXT-DOOR-CLOSE-CAPACITY-WARNING.zipZip アーカイブKaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev118-TEXT-POSITION-SAFETY.zipZip アーカイブKaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev123-PARTS-FACTORY-PREPARATION-COMPOSITION.zipZip アーカイブ取り敢えずまとめてもってきた あなた:あなた:連続タップしてもた（笑） あなた:うごかんのー あなた:(´・ω・｀)？ あなた:あなた:ほぇ？ あなた:あなた:あなた:あなた:にゅ？ あなた:あなた:おおお？ あなた:変化なし！ あなた:あなた:あなた:あなた:立入禁止　初代親方-RAW-20260909-135217.txtドキュメントんー…ちと初代親方過去ログ渡すから調べてみて？ あなた:立入禁止 親方2代目-MOBILE-FOX-20260911-183957.txtドキュメントジャンプはたぶんやってない気もするんだよなあ… 2代目これ あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev111-MOBILE-TEXT-DIRECT-EDITABILITY.zipZip アーカイブあなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev112-MOBILE-MOVE-HANDLE-POINTER-EVENT-RESTORATION.zipZip アーカイブKaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev113-MOBILE-TEXT-ROTATE-CONTROL-ROTATION-DOM-UNIFICATION.zipZip アーカイブKaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev114-REFILL-SAVE-TEXT-INTEGRITY-DOUBLE-UNSLASH-REPAIR.zipZip アーカイブKaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev115-SERIAL-SYSTEM-TOKEN-DECORATION.zipZip アーカイブKaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev116-TEXT-PARTS-FACTORY-CONNECTION-MANAGEMENT.zipZip アーカイブ取り敢えず今は現物の方が早そうだ あなた:ほーいヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev117-V2-TEXT-CAPACITY-AUTHORITY-MEASUREMENT-COMPARISON-RUNTIME-GATE-CANDIDATE.zipZip アーカイブこれかな？スマホだとファイル名全部みえないのよー あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev120-TEXT-DOOR-CLOSE-AUTHORITY-RECONCILIATION-DEFERRED-QA.zipZip アーカイブほい あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev120-TEXT-DOOR-CLOSE-AUTHORITY-RECONCILIATION.zipZip アーカイブたぶんこっちやな。 テスト用機材くっついたの渡したかも あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev133-MOBILE-TEXT-RUNTIME-OBSERVATION-GATE.zipZip アーカイブ承認もらってやったらわけわからんことになったので比較よろ！！！ 🕊️ うん、それが一番いい🕊️🔍️ しかも今は施工させず、133と130の比較だけがいい。 理由は、133は本来「観測器を足しただけ」のはずなのに、実機で130では失敗していたSystem Tokenの局所Deleteが133では成功した。これは予想外だから、ここで私が先へ修理するより、 > DEV130 → DEV133で、観測器以外の製品挙動に触れる差分が本当にゼロか を独立比較で確認してもらう価値が高い。 渡すならこんな狭い指示で十分。 > DEV130 vs DEV133 — READ ONLY SOURCE DIFF AUDIT 目的： DEV133はDEV130から作成したruntime observation buildであり、意図した製品挙動変更はない。 しかしAndroid実機で、DEV130では失敗していたWorkbench System Tokenの局所DeleteがDEV133では成功した。 比較のみ行うこと。 NO CONSTRUCTION / NO REPAIR / NO REDESIGN. 確認： DEV130→DEV133の全source diff instrumentation以外の差分の有無 instrumentationが既存event order / focus / blur / input / beforeinput / Selection / contentEditable / DOM mutation / Parts Factory refresh / Capacity判定へ介入し得るか listenerの追加方式、phase、capture/passive、登録順 instrumentation自身によるDOM追加・refresh・layout/scroll/focusへの影響 Delete成功を説明し得る差分があるか 特に、 「観測コードだから挙動へ影響しない」と仮定しないこと。 Return: exact diff inventory observation-only diff: YES / NO behavior-affecting possibility: FOUND / NOT FOUND / INDETERMINATE Delete成功を説明できる具体的route: FOUND / NOT FOUND unexpected product-source change: FOUND / NOT FOUND 矛盾や意図外変更を見つけたら、その時点でSTOP。 修理しない。 これを出してもらおう。 もし「観測以外ゼロ、観測も既存経路へ介入しない」が返ってきたら、それ自体が超重要。 その場合は「コード修理でDeleteが直った」線を捨てて、focus/caret/browser-state依存の再現条件へ寄せられる。 逆に私が133施工時に何か一個でも余計なもの触ってたら、そこで即発見できるｗ 🕊️ 比較だけ出す → 帰還待ち。私は133をこれ以上触らず待機。 これが安全だよーヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev133-MOBILE-TEXT-RUNTIME-OBSERVATION-GATE(1).zipZip アーカイブ調査よろー🔍️ ういっ★ ヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ🕊️ **「監視員を全員クビにする試験」じゃなく、“一人ずつ面接して、誰をリストラできるか調べる試験”**として切るね。 そのまま親方／実験設計班へ鳩できる形でどうぞー。 > 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV133 OBSERVER BUNDLE MINIMUM STABILIZATION / OBSERVER COMPONENT REDUCTION INTERVIEW PLANNING + REDUCTION-ORDER DESIGN ONLY NO CONSTRUCTION NO PRODUCT REPAIR NO NEW DEV REVISION NO HUMAN RUNTIME YET --- PURPOSE DEV133 produced real Human runtime evidence in which ordinary local System Token editing/Delete succeeded. Full source comparison found no established product-logic repair between DEV130 and DEV133. DEV133 does, however, contain an observer bundle inside the relevant mobile native-editing event neighborhood. The Human has accepted two legitimate investigation outcomes: ROUTE A — CLEAN OBSERVER ISOLATION Reduce observer effects sufficiently to expose an underlying conventional product defect, if one exists. ROUTE B — MINIMUM STABILIZATION Determine whether a small observer-derived condition can remain and legitimately serve as a simple, bounded mobile-edit stabilization mechanism. Complete Android/browser root-cause explanation is NOT itself a product requirement. Canonical Human requirement: > System Token must remain practically editable/removable on mobile. Canonical Human shorthand: > 真犯人逮捕そのものは製品要件ではない。 警備員一人で平和なら、そいつの正式雇用も比較しろ★ --- AUTHORITY DEV130 Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev130-TEXT-CAPACITY-PRACTICAL-FULL-COMBINED-AWARENESS.zip SHA256: 4bc0915aa2a064d517125b0e05b18dced67956e153a4c920e2279d47976ce605 Status: CURRENT PRODUCT AUTHORITY / UNTOUCHED DEV133 Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev133-MOBILE-TEXT-RUNTIME-OBSERVATION-GATE(1).zip SHA256: 35f2ca485d11af9dd43249349413bc22550b82424c0839a93caf9e81fa2fb023 Status: RUNTIME OBSERVATION BUILD / EVIDENCE ARTIFACT DEV133 is NOT current product authority and must not be silently promoted into one. Preserve both artifacts unchanged. --- ACCEPTED DEV133 OBSERVER INVENTORY Source review has identified at least the following observer classes. GROUP A — EVENT REGISTRATION / INTERPOSITION Document capture-phase observation including: pointerdown mousedown beforeinput focusin focusout Existing review did NOT find observer-side preventDefault(), stopPropagation(), explicit focus transfer, or Selection mutation in these listeners. Nevertheless their registration and synchronous execution occur inside the relevant event environment. Classification: EVENT INTERPOSITION --- GROUP B — RUNTIME STATE READS Including where applicable: activeElement event target closest Text object inputType defaultPrevented scroll state candidate accepted fits resulting raw Text Classification: PURE READ / LOW INTERPOSITION This classification does NOT mean proven zero interference. --- GROUP C — SYNCHRONOUS VISIBLE DOM WRITES DEV133 synchronously updates visible diagnostic furniture, including probe-panel .textContent. The probe panel is real visible DOM. Classification: DOM MUTATION / MATERIAL INTERFERENCE POSSIBILITY Do NOT assume a separate diagnostic element is harmless merely because it is not the edited Text node. --- GROUP D — DIRECT PRODUCT-PATH OBSERVATION HOOKS Probe calls exist inside relevant existing product paths, including observed locations associated with: Workbench input Parts Factory Text refresh Door Close Classification: PRODUCT-PATH INSTRUMENTATION These hooks must not be confused with product repairs. --- TASK — CONDUCT THE “REDUNDANCY INTERVIEW” Review the exact DEV133 SOURCE and determine the safest order in which observer components should be removed or isolated for later controlled comparison. The objective is NOT: > remove everything until DEV130 is recreated. The objective is: > identify which observer employees can be dismissed while preserving the DEV133 successful mobile-edit condition, until either: > A. no observer-derived condition remains; or B. a minimum surviving stabilization component is identified. Do NOT construct the reduction builds during this pass. --- INTERVIEW EACH COMPONENT For every meaningful observer component or tightly coupled group, return: IDENTITY What exact listener/read/write/hook is being evaluated? JOB What does it actually do in DEV133? EVENT POSITION Where does it execute relative to native editing and existing product handlers? SIDE EFFECT SURFACE Does it read only, register an event, mutate DOM, enter a product path, affect layout/paint opportunity, or introduce another material timing/interposition possibility? DEPENDENCIES Can it be removed independently, or does another observer component depend upon it for evidence? DISMISSAL SAFETY Can it be removed/isolate-tested without changing product behavior or simultaneously changing another independent observer variable? EVIDENCE VALUE If removed and successful Delete remains, what hypothesis becomes weaker? If removed and failure returns, what hypothesis becomes stronger? RECOMMENDATION One of: DISMISS FIRST DISMISS LATER KEEP AS CONTROL FOR NOW COUPLED — CANNOT INTERPRET ALONE STOP — UNSAFE TO ISOLATE --- REQUIRED REDUCTION ORDER Produce a proposed ordered reduction ladder. Example structure only: DEV133 observer bundle ↓ remove/isolate Component X only Stage 1 ↓ if successful behavior survives, remove/isolate Component Y only Stage 2 ↓ … minimum surviving condition Do NOT blindly use that example ordering. Determine the actual order from SOURCE. Each stage should preferably change one interpretable experimental variable. If two components cannot meaningfully be separated, explicitly mark them as a coupled experimental unit rather than pretending the comparison is clean. --- FIRST DISMISSAL CANDIDATE — REVIEW, DO NOT ASSUME Previous Aide review identified synchronous visible probe DOM mutation as a strong first reduction candidate because it is the clearest observer action that performs an actual DOM write during the relevant native-editing critical path. Review whether this remains the best first dismissal after considering all DEV133 observer dependencies. Do NOT accept it merely because Aide proposed it. Specifically determine whether: probe state can still be captured without synchronous visible painting; removing synchronous paint can be done without changing product-handler ordering; diagnostic evidence can be retained outside the critical path without introducing a second uncontrolled variable; deferral itself would create a materially different experiment. If a cleaner first comparison exists, propose it instead. --- PRODUCTIZATION INTERVIEW If a later reduction leaves a small component that appears necessary for successful native editing, evaluate whether it could plausibly become a product candidate. A possible candidate must be: narrow; mobile-local; simple; non-destructive; free of diagnostic UI; free of unnecessary logging; compatible with native caret/editing; compatible with ordinary Text; compatible with Text single authority; compatible with raw/live System Token separation; free of hidden Token persistence/state; regression-testable; reasonably bounded for future maintenance. Do NOT require complete browser-engine causal proof merely to consider it. But do NOT productize unexplained broad side effects merely because they happen to work. --- AUTOMATIC STOP / “あれ？” CONDITIONS STOP immediately if the minimum successful condition appears to require: meaningless repeated DOM mutation; hidden/dummy DOM furniture; broad document-level interception that cannot be bounded; unstable focus manipulation; Selection manipulation unrelated to the Human action; repeated unrelated layout mutation; disabling or bypassing DEV130 Capacity authority; changing Token grammar/parser/resolver; changing raw/live authority; changing Parts Factory architecture; changing Writing Desk authority; changing Move/Rotate/Door Close behavior; product behavior changes merely to make the experiment easier; multiple independent experimental variables changed at once with no interpretable comparison; any SOURCE contradiction with the accepted DEV130↔DEV133 diff. Return: MINIMUM OBSERVER ROUTE — TECHNICALLY WORKING BUT PRODUCT SAFETY UNCLEAR where appropriate. Do not force productization. --- WHOLE-TOKEN ALTERNATIVE — PRESERVE, DO NOT MIX The independently demonstrated whole-token Selection approach remains an available alternative. It is NOT part of this observer-reduction experiment. Do not merge its Selection mechanism into any observer-reduction stage. If the minimum observer-derived solution remains broad or suspicious, return it for comparison against the whole-token approach rather than combining the two. --- LATER RUNTIME SUCCESS IS NOT DELETE-ONLY If construction/runtime testing is later authorized, a surviving candidate cannot pass merely because one System Token Delete succeeds. Later regression QA must preserve at minimum: ordinary Text insertion/editing; native caret; ordinary local Backspace/Delete; partial System Token editing; complete local System Token removal; ordinary Selection behavior; Text object selection; Move; Mobile Writing Desk; Text single authority; raw/live System Token separation; existing synchronization; DEV130 Capacity authorities; practical-full behavior. Do NOT perform that runtime QA during this planning pass. --- REQUIRED RETURN Return to Aide/Oyakata: 1. Artifact verification. 2. Exact observer employee list. 3. Each employee's actual job. 4. Interference classification. 5. Dependency/coupling map. 6. Recommended dismissal order. 7. Reason for the first dismissal. 8. Exact experimental variable changed at each proposed stage. 9. Evidence preserved at each stage. 10. Meaning of PASS at each stage. 11. Meaning of FAIL at each stage. 12. Point at which further dismissal becomes uninterpretable. 13. Earliest plausible minimum-stabilization candidate, if any. 14. Product-safety concerns for such a candidate. 15. Conditions that would send the work back to conventional repair Route A. 16. Conditions that would send the work to whole-token alternative comparison. 17. Exact construction boundary for the FIRST reduction experiment only, if later authorized. 18. STOP conditions. 19. DEV130 untouched confirmation. 20. DEV133 evidence-only confirmation. 21. No construction confirmation. 22. No new DEV revision confirmation. 23. CHECK LOG. --- CURRENT AUTHORIZATION SOURCE REVIEW: GO REDUCTION / DISMISSAL ORDER DESIGN: GO EXPERIMENT CONSTRUCTION: NO PRODUCT REPAIR: NO PRODUCTIZATION: NO HUMAN RUNTIME: NO NEW DEV ID: NO If SOURCE supports a clean reduction ladder, return the drawing first. Do not begin firing employees until Oyakata approves the interview results. 🕊️ リストラ候補者面接 → GO Canonical workshop shorthand: > 全員クビにするな。 一人ずつ「お前ほんとに必要？」って聞いてこい★ 😂🪑 これなら、調査班が勝手に「probe panelが怪しいから削除！」と施工を始めず、まず133の監視員名簿・仕事内容・依存関係・リストラ順をSOURCEから作って帰ってくる。 その結果を補佐で受けて、第一解雇試験だけ施工票にするのが一番事故りにくい★ 🕊️🔍️表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev143-WORKBENCH-FIXED-SAMPLE-PRESENTATION.zipZip アーカイブほーい！ 新確認きたぞーヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV143 TIMESTAMP / SERIAL SHORT-MARKER DEFINITION PATH NARROW SOURCE + RUNTIME-PATH INVESTIGATION TICKET INVESTIGATION ONLY NO CONSTRUCTION NO REPAIR NO NEW DEV REVISION NO RESOLVER REDESIGN ================================================== ROLE ================================================== You are the narrow investigation specialist. A runtime Preview check currently shows a clean family difference: COUNTER: fixed Preview mannequin appears successfully. TIMESTAMP: 【timestamp1】 remains visible literally. SERIAL: 【serial】 remains visible literally. DEV143 SOURCE inspection already indicates that Preview mannequin resolution exists for all three families IF they reach: kpdfResolveToken(tok, 'preview') Therefore this investigation must NOT begin by modifying or redesigning the Preview resolver. We need to find the FIRST divergence before that point. ================================================== SOURCE ================================================== Inspect the EXACT DEV143 artifact used for the reported runtime screenshot. Verify artifact identity first. Report: - filename - internal revision identity - SHA256 If exact DEV143 cannot be established: STOP. Do NOT substitute DEV142, DEV141, or another build. ================================================== KNOWN RUNTIME WITNESS ================================================== COUNTER is the known-PASS comparison witness. Observed Preview: Counter → fixed mannequin presentation appears Timestamp: 【timestamp1】 remains literal. Serial: 【serial】 remains literal. Do NOT reinterpret the literal markers as failed mannequin formatting. A literal marker means the first question is: "DID THIS MARKER BECOME A TOKEN AT ALL?" ================================================== KNOWN SOURCE SHAPE ================================================== Expected short-marker route is conceptually: raw Text marker ↓ marker key ↓ design.token_symbols[key] ↓ kpdfTokenFromDefinition() ↓ Token ↓ kpdfResolveToken(tok, 'preview') ↓ fixed mannequin presentation If definition lookup fails or Token construction does not occur: the marker can remain ordinary Human Text. ================================================== INVESTIGATION METHOD ================================================== Compare all three families SIDE BY SIDE. Use Counter as known-PASS. At every checkpoint record: COUNTER TIMESTAMP SERIAL Find the FIRST checkpoint where: Counter = expected state but Timestamp and/or Serial = different state. Once the first meaningful divergence is established: STOP. Do NOT continue downstream merely to find more differences. ================================================== CHECKPOINT 1 — TOKEN MACHINE DEFINITION WRITE ================================================== Inspect the exact Token Machine path that creates/updates symbol definitions. Determine whether the current Working design receives: design.token_symbols.counter design.token_symbols.timestamp1 design.token_symbols.serial For each family report: - exact key written - exact function/handler writing it - minimum stored definition shape - whether write actually reaches the current design authority Do NOT infer from UI appearance alone. ================================================== CHECKPOINT 2 — SANITIZATION ================================================== Trace: sanitize_token_symbols() and the applicable: sanitize_design() Compare all three families. Determine whether: counter timestamp1 serial are all accepted and preserved. Check especially: - allowed family/type values - key normalization - numbering - missing/default fields - validation branches - family-specific rejection Do NOT repair anything found. ================================================== CHECKPOINT 3 — CURRENT DESIGN STATE ================================================== Immediately before Preview preparation, establish whether the design actually contains all expected definitions. Expected conceptually: token_symbols = { counter: ..., timestamp1: ..., serial: ... } Report the actual keys SOURCE/runtime path would provide. If one or more definitions are already absent here: THIS MAY BE THE FIRST DIVERGENCE. STOP after proving where they disappeared. ================================================== CHECKPOINT 4 — PREVIEW DESIGN TRANSPORT ================================================== Only if Checkpoint 3 passes for all three: trace the design passed through the existing Preview path. Determine whether the exact Preview target design still carries: token_symbols.counter token_symbols.timestamp1 token_symbols.serial Inspect the actual design object used by: kpdfOpenPreview(...) and ultimately supplied to presentation construction. Do NOT investigate Working / Refill / Stock broadly. Follow only the path actually required by this Preview invocation. ================================================== CHECKPOINT 5 — PRESENTATION SYMBOL MAP ================================================== Only if Checkpoint 4 passes: inspect the symbol map actually supplied to: kpdfBuildPresentation( ..., 'preview', design.token_symbols ) Compare whether the map contains the three expected keys. ================================================== CHECKPOINT 6 — MARKER KEY PARSING ================================================== Only if the definitions are present: inspect how these exact raw strings are parsed: 【counter】 【timestamp1】 【serial】 Report the exact parsed key for each. Compare parsed key against actual token_symbols key EXACTLY. Look only for SOURCE-supported differences such as: - spelling - numbering - normalization - family name - key generation Do NOT invent alternate grammar. ================================================== CHECKPOINT 7 — TOKEN CONSTRUCTION ================================================== Only if marker keys and definitions match: inspect: kpdfTokenFromDefinition() For: counter timestamp1 serial Determine whether each returns the expected resolver-shaped Token. If Timestamp or Serial returns null / false / literal fallback / equivalent: identify the exact first condition responsible. STOP. ================================================== DO NOT INVESTIGATE ================================================== Unless the first divergence directly requires it, do NOT inspect: - live Counter issuance - live Timestamp value - live Serial value - Timestamp runtime API - Serial runtime API - Counter mannequin formatting - Timestamp mannequin formatting - Serial mannequin formatting - FINAL - renderer - Common redesign - Working/Refill/Stock redesign - Text editor - capacity - Selection - caret - Delete - LAST-ONE - Ghost - sacrificial Token - old two-box anomaly Those are outside this ticket. ================================================== NO OBSERVER FURNITURE ================================================== Prefer SOURCE comparison first. Do NOT add visible observer panels or permanent diagnostic furniture. If SOURCE alone cannot establish a runtime-only state: return: RUNTIME EVIDENCE REQUIRED and specify the smallest exact runtime observation needed. Do NOT construct instrumentation without authorization. ================================================== CLASSIFICATION ================================================== Return one of: A. DEFINITION NEVER WRITTEN B. DEFINITION WRITTEN BUT SANITIZED/LOST C. DEFINITION PRESENT BEFORE PREVIEW BUT LOST IN PREVIEW TRANSPORT D. DEFINITION PRESENT BUT MARKER KEY DOES NOT MATCH E. DEFINITION + KEY MATCH BUT TOKEN CONSTRUCTION FAILS F. ALL ABOVE PASS — DIVERGENCE IS DOWNSTREAM G. NOT PROVEN Do NOT force a classification unsupported by evidence. ================================================== RETURN FORMAT ================================================== ARTIFACT VERIFICATION COUNTER KNOWN-PASS PATH TIMESTAMP PATH SERIAL PATH CHECKPOINT TABLE: 1. definition write 2. sanitization 3. current design 4. Preview transport 5. presentation symbol map 6. marker key 7. Token construction FIRST DIVERGENCE CLASSIFICATION EXACT SOURCE LOCATION SOURCE-PROVEN REASON RUNTIME EVIDENCE NEEDED (if any) CONSTRUCTION: NONE SOURCE CHANGES: NONE ================================================== STOP RULE ================================================== The purpose is NOT: "find everything wrong with Timestamp and Serial." The purpose is: "find the FIRST place where these two stop behaving like the known-good Counter path." Once found: STOP AND RETURN. ================================================== HUMAN SHORTHAND ================================================== Counterさんは受付を通れてる。 TimestampさんとSerialさんは、 【timestamp1】 【serial】 の名札を付けたまま玄関にいる。 見るのは： 「どの受付で止められた？」 だけ。 受付1 → 名簿に書いた？ 受付2 → 名簿から消されてない？ 受付3 → Previewまで名簿持ってきた？ 受付4 → 名札の名前と名簿の名前、一緒？ 受付5 → Tokenとして入館できた？ Counterさんと横並びで歩かせて、 最初に二人だけ止まった受付で 「ここー★」 って帰ってこい。 修理するな。 奥まで観光するな★ ================================================== GO ================================================== NARROW INVESTIGATION AUTHORIZED. GO. 🕊️🐈‍⬛表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:こういうのでええの？ あなた:取り敢えずこれでいい？ コピーの発行すると変換される。 あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev144-TIMESTAMP-SHORT-MARKER-SPLIT.zipZip アーカイブこんどこっち。 実機はこっちで★ 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV143 SYSTEM TOKEN ISSUED-SYMBOL POOL / SAVE-TIME TEXT BINDING SOURCE FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION READ-ONLY DESIGN INVESTIGATION ONLY NO CONSTRUCTION NO REPAIR NO NEW DEV NO PRODUCT DECISION CHANGE ================================================== CONFIRMED HUMAN INTENT ================================================== Current user flow should remain: Token Machine Decide ↓ Issue ↓ paste short marker into ordinary Text ↓ normal Save Do NOT add a new user-facing "Decide after paste" operation. ================================================== HUMAN DESIGN CONCEPT ================================================== A Token marker is incomplete immediately after paste because no separate post-paste commit exists. Human proposal: 1. Decide → Token presentation/settings are prepared. 2. Issue → record only minimal symbol identity in a paper-side pool. Example concept: 【serial】 = Serial symbol 【counter】 = Counter symbol 【date】 = Date symbol The pool must NOT own: - Text content - Text seat number - live issued value - Counter current number - Serial current number - Text layout - duplicate Text persistence 3. Paste → marker remains ordinary raw Text content. 4. Save → inspect saved Text content, find short markers, match them against the issued-symbol pool, and establish the saved Text ↔ symbol relationship. User should not need another button. ================================================== ONLY INVESTIGATION QUESTION ================================================== Using CURRENT DEV143 SOURCE, determine the smallest existing authority/seam that can support this Human design WITHOUT inventing a parallel persistence system. Inspect: - design.token_symbols - kpdfTokenSymbols - hidden token_symbols_json - Text raw authority / text_objects[].content - Save serialization - sanitize_design() - Save / Load reconstruction - Preview tokenization / definition lookup ================================================== ANSWER THESE EXACT QUESTIONS ================================================== 1. Can existing design.token_symbols serve as the proposed issued-symbol pool, either directly or with a narrower interpretation? 2. Does design.token_symbols currently own presentation settings in a way that makes "identity-only pool" a different responsibility? 3. Is there an existing Save-time seam where raw Text markers can be scanned and matched to issued symbol identities without creating a second Text authority? 4. Does Load/Preview already have a seam that can reconstruct recognition from saved marker identity + existing token definition data? 5. Would this design require: A. only rewiring existing state, B. one small additional design field, C. a genuinely new persistence authority? 6. If a new field appears necessary, STOP and explain why. Do NOT design or construct it yet. ================================================== PRESERVE ================================================== - text_objects[].content remains sole raw Text authority - short markers remain ordinary editable Text - Token Machine remains PDF-owned - Common remains routing/power authority only - Working / Refill / Stock separation - existing Preview mannequin behavior - no live product value persistence - no extra post-paste user button ================================================== DO NOT ================================================== Do not repair current Save failure. Do not reopen: - DEV114 double-unslash - Serial hyphen - Timestamp identity - LAST-ONE - Ghost - observer - FINAL - renderer - capacity Do not add: - new DB table - new option - new service - new Token engine - duplicate Text state ================================================== RETURN ================================================== A. EXISTING AUTHORITY CAN SUPPORT HUMAN DESIGN Show exact existing fields/functions and smallest rewiring seam. B. EXISTING AUTHORITY ALMOST FITS / ONE RESPONSIBILITY CONFLICT Show exact conflict and STOP. C. NEW PERSISTENCE AUTHORITY REQUIRED Explain why existing design structure cannot safely carry it. STOP. No construction proposal. D. HUMAN DESIGN CONFLICTS WITH CURRENT SOURCE MODEL Show exact conflict and STOP. ================================================== HUMAN SHORTHAND ================================================== 発行で、 「この符号は何者か」 だけ紙側の名簿へ載せたい。 貼り付けた時点では、まだただの文字。 Saveを押したら、 「本文にこの符号があるね。 名簿にも載ってるね。 じゃあこのTextではTokenとして扱う★」 にしたい。 新しい役所を建てる前に、 今ある名簿と保存係でできるか見てこい。 できなければ、 どこが足りないかだけ返せ。 工事はするな★表示を増やす表示を減らす 日曜日 6:11あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev152-FRAME-05-DIAMOND-TRIO-SAMPLE-CLEARANCE.zipZip アーカイブおかげで助かったよーヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ つぎこれうけてくれー まー、なんか飲み物片手にみてくれや。 質問あればうけるー 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE FRAME ORNAMENT COUNT-LANE CONSOLIDATION SOURCE INVESTIGATION + NARROW DESIGN READ SOURCE. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. NO PRODUCT REDESIGN. CURRENT HUMAN OBSERVATION Current Frame ornament behavior appears to be reducible by ornament-count placement rather than by individual preset. Human hypothesis: - maximum visible ornament count appears to be 5 - useful count classes may be: 1 3 5 Further simplification proposal: - 1-count ornaments may not need a separate placement lane - if a 1-count ornament can safely become 3 repeated instances of the same ornament unit, it may share the same placement mechanism as existing 3-count ornaments If valid, the implementation may only need: - 3-count lane - 5-count lane Do NOT assume this is correct. Verify from SOURCE. INVESTIGATE 1. Identify every current Free Frame preset that uses ornament/symbol placement rather than only plain line rules. 2. For each preset, determine from SOURCE: - ornament unit - current count - placement positions - whether the unit is a single glyph or composite cluster - whether Outer and Inner use the same rendering path - whether browser Preview and PDF renderer use equivalent logic 3. Classify current ornament presets by effective placement count. Check whether the real usable classes are in fact: - 1 - 3 - 5 If another class exists, report it. Do not force the data into 1/3/5. 4. Test the HUMAN simplification conceptually against SOURCE: Can every current 1-count ornament safely be represented as 3 repeated instances of the same existing ornament unit, without changing its intended visual grammar beyond removing the "lonely ornament" presentation? Examples of the intended principle: one ○ → ○ ○ ○ one ◆ → ◆ ◆ ◆ This is repetition of the SAME EXISTING UNIT. No new artwork. 5. Determine whether 1-count and 3-count presets can therefore share one common 3-position placement path. 6. Determine what currently requires 5 positions and whether those cases can use one common 5-position path. 7. Preserve special grammar where count alone is NOT sufficient. Examples: - corner ornaments - segmented rules - wrapped/composite units - anything where positions are semantically different Do not flatten these merely to satisfy the 3/5 theory. GOAL Return the smallest SOURCE-supported design. Preferred result, only if SOURCE supports it: A. THREE-POSITION ORNAMENT LANE - current 1-count presets promoted to three repeated units - current 3-count presets use same placement mechanism B. FIVE-POSITION ORNAMENT LANE - current 5-count presets use shared five-position mechanism If some presets cannot fit these lanes safely, identify only those exceptions. IMPORTANT The Human goal is simplification. Do not produce one special renderer per preset if a count-based shared placement lane is sufficient. Do not redesign Frame vocabulary. Do not change fixed numbering. Do not change preset identities. Do not touch System Token work. Do not touch unrelated PDF machinery. Do not invent new artwork. REPORT Return: - exact preset classification - current counts - whether 1→3 consolidation is SOURCE-safe - whether only 3-position + 5-position lanes are sufficient - any true exceptions - browser/PDF parity risks - narrowest construction recommendation If SOURCE shows an unexpected structure, STOP and report it rather than designing around it.表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:kaia-pdf-frame-playground-fr02(1).htmlファイルkaia-pdf-frame-playground-fr01(1).htmlファイルあー…それ、ビーズ元のデータのこと？ 添付のやつなら5だけ今日追加で入れ替えしてるんだよ あなた:おけおけ。 ここなんな？ あなた:プレビューうまくいっとらんのよーなんでかな？ ChatGPT:1m 58s考えましたあ、これFrame自体より「Previewの見せ方」が怪しいやつだと思う。🕊️ スクショ拡大してDEV160のSOURCEと照らしたけど、05と06はちゃんと選択どおり出てる。 外側05：── ◇◇◇ ── 内側06：── ••• ••• ••• ── 上下とも同じものが出てる なので、presetの選択ミスや今回の05/06道路施工が壊れてる感じではない。 ただ、今のBrowser描画は ornament をこうしてる。 中央に文字spanを置く → 背景色＋左右paddingで元のborderを隠す つまり「線＋飾り」を本当に一本のFrameとして描いてるんじゃなくて、普通の四角borderの上へ白い札を貼って、そこに飾り文字を乗せてる。 スクショで妙に見えるのはこれだと思う。 特に今は外05＋内06を同時に出してるから、 四角い線 ↓ 中央だけ白いマスクで切れる ↓ そこへ ◇◇◇ / ••• を文字として乗せる になってて、「ちゃんとした装飾Frame」より“線を文字でぶった切って貼った感”が出てる（笑） しかもSOURCE確認したら .kpdf-frame-ornament に padding: 0 7px; backgroundColor = bg が入ってる。 これがまさに中央の白抜き区間を作ってる。 なので今のところ私の診断は、 データ：正常っぽい 05/06 routing：正常っぽい Preview描画方式：元からかなり力技★ だなｗ ここはちょっと重要で、PDF側は図形として描いてるのにBrowser Preview側は文字札方式だから、今回Frameを整理したことでむしろ「Previewの古い描画方式」が目立ってきた感じ。 だからこれは私なら、ここで一旦STOPする。 うわぁ……発生地点：Browser Frame Preview renderer。 Frame presetをまたいじる問題ではなさそう。 次に触るなら「Frameデザイン」ではなく、Browser Previewの飾り描画をどう見せるかを狭く見るのが正しいと思う★ PDF側まで巻き込む必要は、今のスクショからは見えない。 あなた:うーん、四辺なしでいいかー(´∀｀*) こっちのほうがすっきりだねー あなた:みたとここんな感じだね 他のデザインもやってきたの？ あなた:自分でみてみー あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev166-PAPER-AXIS-LOCKED-PAIR-CONVERSION(1).zipZip アーカイブ🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV166 TEXT PRESENTATION PATH SEPARATION SOURCE INVESTIGATION + MINIMUM CONSTRUCTION BLUEPRINT READ ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. NO REDESIGN. EXACT PARENT Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev166-PAPER-AXIS-LOCKED-PAIR-CONVERSION.zip DEV166 is RUNTIME KNOWN-PASS. Preserve all DEV166 paper-only rotation / locked-pair work. ================================================== HUMAN TARGET ================================================== Investigate how Text presentation currently branches across: 1. Browser Preview 2. Sample Mask 3. FINAL PDF Especially identify: A. The exact boundary where Text-family presentation disappears from FINAL PDF. B. The exact boundary where System Token mannequin presentation is not yet connected into Sample Mask. Then produce the smallest SOURCE-supported construction blueprint using existing authorities. Do NOT construct yet. ================================================== KNOWN PRODUCT BOUNDARIES ================================================== Text content authority already exists. System Token marker / token_symbols authority already exists. Browser mannequin presentation already exists. Do NOT invent: - second Text authority - second Token authority - new token grammar - new persistence - new Text storage - new FINAL data authority The task is presentation-path connection, not product redesign. ================================================== INITIAL SOURCE WITNESS — VERIFY, DO NOT ASSUME ================================================== Aide inspection of exact DEV166 found: final_preflight() ↓ saved / resolved design ↓ final PDF request ↓ render_pdf($sheet['design'], ...) render_pdf() currently constructs PDF content from: - Background - Outer Frame - Inner Frame - Image and then: build_pdf(...) Initial witness found NO Text rendering stage in render_pdf(). text_objects remain part of sanitize_design(), so determine whether: - Text survives into FINAL settings but is simply never rendered or whether another loss boundary also exists. Do not call this a bug unless SOURCE supports that conclusion. ================================================== PATH 1 — BROWSER PREVIEW ================================================== Trace exact Text presentation path from: design.text_objects ↓ Browser Preview composition ↓ visible Text Identify: - content source - enabled/disconnected handling - position - size - color - wrapping / white-space behavior - any font/presentation fields currently applied - System Token marker parsing - token_symbols lookup - mannequin resolver - unresolved behavior Determine which existing function(s) are the current Browser presentation authority. Do not redesign them. ================================================== PATH 2 — SAMPLE MASK ================================================== Trace Sample Mask construction exactly. Determine: - whether Sample Mask is a separate composition renderer - whether it reuses Browser Preview composition underneath - when sample-preview.png / mask surface is added - whether Text objects are already present beneath/within the mask - whether ordinary Text survives - where System Token markers are currently left unresolved or omitted - whether mannequin resolution is absent because: * resolver is never called * resolved design is not passed * token_symbols are unavailable * presentation helper is bypassed * another exact SOURCE boundary exists Human observation: Sample Mask currently does NOT have System Token mannequin wiring. Find the exact missing connection. Do NOT create a second mannequin system. ================================================== PATH 3 — FINAL PDF ================================================== Trace: Working / Refill design ↓ FINAL preflight ↓ resolved saved design ↓ render_pdf() ↓ PDF content stream For Text-family data determine: - does text_objects reach render_pdf()? - does token_symbols reach render_pdf()? - are they sanitized intact? - is ordinary Text ever iterated? - is System Token marker parsing ever invoked? - is mannequin resolution appropriate for FINAL, or is FINAL expected to use another existing resolved-value authority? IMPORTANT: Do NOT assume Browser mannequin values belong in FINAL. Browser Preview mannequin is presentation/sample behavior. FINAL may require existing real resolved System Token values instead. Report the authority distinction explicitly. ================================================== FINAL TEXT RENDERING BOUNDARY ================================================== If SOURCE confirms that FINAL simply lacks a Text renderer, identify the smallest insertion boundary. Do NOT immediately design a new general typography engine. Inspect whether existing Text presentation data can be translated directly into the existing PDF content stream machinery. Check existing PDF helpers, including current text-capable primitives, before proposing anything new. Determine minimum support required for CURRENT Free Text semantics only. Preserve current product allocation and authority. ================================================== SYSTEM TOKEN BOUNDARY ================================================== Separate these presentation purposes: BROWSER WORKBENCH - existing live/editor presentation BROWSER PREVIEW - existing mannequin presentation where applicable SAMPLE MASK - should receive existing mannequin presentation if Human intent and SOURCE support it FINAL PDF - must NOT blindly print mannequin values if FINAL already has or requires real System Token resolution Identify exact existing resolver(s) and route each output to the correct presentation path. No duplicate resolver. ================================================== PRESERVE ================================================== Do not touch: - DEV166 paper rotation separation - locked-pair image geometry - Image Size / Fit / Load - Frame - Frame numbering / vocabulary - Text content authority - Direct Edit - Writing Desk - Workbench Text - Text ON/OFF/Delete - Position Return - Capacity 35% / combined 50% - System Token marker grammar - token_symbols persistence - Common routing - Counter / Timestamp / Serial product authority - PDF Refill / Stock - FINAL preflight ownership / nonce - unrelated PDF renderer machinery ================================================== STOP CONDITIONS ================================================== STOP if: - Text is actually lost before render_pdf(), contrary to initial witness - Sample Mask requires a second Token authority - FINAL real Token resolution is not available from existing authority - implementing FINAL Text requires changing Text persistence semantics - Unicode/font support requires a product decision beyond current existing Text contract - Browser Text geometry cannot be translated to PDF without redefining saved position/size semantics - Sample Mask and Browser Preview are not separable in the assumed way - any DEV166 known-PASS rotation/image work must be modified Do not solve around these conditions. ================================================== REPORT / BLUEPRINT ================================================== Return: 1. exact Browser Preview Text path 2. exact Sample Mask Text path 3. exact FINAL Text path 4. precise FINAL Text disappearance boundary 5. precise Sample Mask mannequin missing-wire boundary 6. existing Text/Token authorities reusable for each path 7. Browser mannequin vs FINAL real-value authority distinction 8. smallest required construction CUTS 9. any true STOP/WATCH 10. narrow construction order CONSTRUCTION: NONE. GOAL: Connect existing presentation authorities to the missing destinations. Do not build a new Text system. Do not build a new Token system. Human shorthand: 「データあるんやろ？ 途中まで表示できとるんやろ？ じゃあ、どこで線が切れてるか見てこい★」表示を増やす表示を減らす ChatGPT:3m 51s考えました🕊️ 調査完了。 施工なし。DEV166の既知PASS領域には触れてない。 先に結論から言うと、線が切れている場所はかなり綺麗に見えた。ただし、SOURCEを読んだ結果、鳩の前提と違うところが2か所出たので、STOP条件に入った★ Exact parent SHA256 は f00b06c826a4314b0f099c2a77f25491e8891022a8f378ec8f979bac50b810ea PHP lint PASS。 1. Browser Preview Text path 保存authorityはそのまま。 design.text_objects → sanitize_text_objects() → Working / Refill → Browserでは restoreTextObjects() → .kpdf-text-object → raw authority .kpdf-text-content → presentation sibling .kpdf-system-presentation System Token側は、 design.token_symbols → kpdfTokenSymbols → kpdfTokenize() → kpdfResolveToken() → kpdfBuildPresentation() で既存一本。 Workbenchの kpdfRefreshPresentation(obj,'workbench') は内部で workbench → preview に変換しているので、編集していない通常表示ではすでに mannequin を使ってる。 別窓Previewはさらに明確で、 kpdfRunResolvedPreflight() → resolved design → kpdfOpenPreview() → design.text_objects をiterate → connected===0 はskip → .kpdf-preview-text → kpdfBuildPresentation(content,'preview',design.token_symbols) となってる。 適用中なのは、 content：text_objects[].content ON/OFF：connected===0 を除外 position：x / y を % size：ll / large / medium / small color：object color、なければ design text color font：sans / serif / mono white-space：Previewは nowrap Token：既存 token_symbols unresolved：[counter —] 等の既存 unresolved presentation 新しいText authorityは不要。 一方、saved rotation はPreview側で読まれていない。wrap stateも保存authorityには存在せず、Previewは固定nowrap。これは今回の「切れた線」とは別の既存境界なので、勝手に直す対象にはしてない。 2. Sample Mask path ここで最初の「あれ？」が出た。 SOURCE上、Sample Maskは別のText composition rendererではない。 Workbenchでは、 kpdf-production-layer の中にFrame / Image / user content Text があり、 その兄弟として上に kpdf-sample-layer → sample-preview.png が被さってるだけ。 別窓Previewも同じ考えで、 clean → Frame → Image → design.text_objects → kpdfBuildPresentation(...,'preview',design.token_symbols) まで完成させたあと、 その完成したclean compositionの上に kpdf-preview-sample-surface として sample-preview.png を載せてる。 つまりSOURCE上は、 ordinary Textも System Token mannequinも 先に同じPreview compositionへ入っている。 その上からSample画像を被せている。 だった。 なので鳩にある 「Sample MaskにはSystem Token mannequin wiringがまだない」 という欠線をSOURCEでは確認できなかった。 むしろ既に、 kpdfBuildPresentation(...,'preview',design.token_symbols) がSample Maskの下地compositionにも使われている。 したがって、 precise missing-wire boundary：SOURCE上は NOT FOUND。 もし実機で「Sample MaskだけToken mannequinが出ていない」なら、次は配線追加ではなく、既存presentationがmask overlay下でどう見えているかのruntime観測案件になる。 ここは指定STOP条件、 Sample Mask and Browser Preview are not separable in the assumed way に該当する。 3. FINAL PDF path こっちは初期witnessどおりだった。 Working → final_preflight() → working_design = sanitize_design(...) → saved Refill design → saved_design ここまで text_objects も token_symbols も残ってる。 さらにFINAL request後、 generate_request() → $sheet['design'] → render_pdf($sheet['design'],...) → 冒頭で再度 sanitize_design($settings) なので、 Textはrender_pdf()到達前には消えていない。Tokenも消えていない。 その直後が切断地点。 現在の render_pdf() は、 Background → Outer Frame → Inner Frame → Image → build_pdf() だけ。 $settings['text_objects'] をiterateしない。 $settings['token_symbols'] も使わない。 したがって正確なFINAL disappearance boundaryは、 render_pdf() 内の sanitize_design() 後、PDF content stream assemblyにText stageが存在しない地点。 ここは確定。 4. Browser mannequin と FINAL real value ここはちゃんとauthorityが分かれてた。 kpdfResolveToken(tok,'preview') はmannequin専用。 Counter → 1234系 Timestamp → 202X.12.12 / 12:34:56 Serial → XXXX-XXXX 一方、preview以外の既存resolver branchは実値を取る。 Counter： kpdfCounterSystem.issued_number Timestamp： window.KaiaTimestamp.getState() / getSelectedById() Serial： window.KaiaSerial.getState() / getSelected() したがって、 Browser mannequin ≠ FINAL authority はSOURCEでも明確。 ここをFINALでmannequin印字するのは駄目。 ところがもう一つSTOP。 この実値resolverはJavaScript側にしかない。 現在FINALはブラウザから、 sheet ID nonce output size issue name だけPOSTして、PHPの render_pdf() がsaved designを読み直す。 FINAL PHP側には、Counter/Timestamp/Serial全部を解決する共通Token resolverが存在しない。 Counterについてはadmin画面生成時に kaia_cnt22_latest_issuance_event() を読む箇所はあるけど、FINAL Token resolverにはなっていない。Timestamp/Serialについても、このexact DEV166内には相当するPHP実値resolverがない。 なので、 「既存のFINAL real-value authorityをrender_pdfへ一本つなげば終わり」ではない。 既存実値authorityは存在するが、現在はclient-side runtimeに閉じていてFINAL server pathへ到達していない。 指定STOP条件の FINAL real Token resolution is not available from existing authority に、少なくとも現在のFINAL PHP pathという意味では該当する。 5. FINAL ordinary Textの最小挿入位置 位置自体は明確。 render_pdf() の Frame生成後 / Image生成周辺 → build_pdf() の前に、Text content streamを追加するのが最小CUT。 text_objects を新しく保存し直す必要はない。 x / y はnormalizedなのでPDF page width / heightへ直接写せる。 connectedも既存bitを使える。 size、color、font_styleも既存authority。 ただしここで第二の技術STOPがある。 既存PDF text primitiveは実質、 pdf_frame_ascii() → pdf_text() → /F1 Helvetica / WinAnsiEncoding だけ。 pdf_text() はUTF-8をWindows-1252へtransliterateして、残った非対応文字を ? にする。 一方、現行Text contractはBrowser上で普通にUnicode、日本語を保持できる。 つまりこれをそのまま一般Text rendererとして使うと、 「あいうえお」 → 正常なFINAL Text を保証できない。 なので指定STOP条件、 Unicode/font support requires a product decision beyond current existing Text contract にも該当する。 これは新しい大仰なTypography engineを作れという意味ではないけど、現在のHelvetica/WinAnsi primitiveだけで現行Free Text semanticsを完全には接続できない。 SOURCE-supported construction CUTS STOPを解除できた場合に必要なのは、本当に小さく分けると3CUT。 CUT A — Sample Mask 現時点では施工CUTなし。 既存Preview mannequin wiringはSOURCE上すでに存在。まずruntime witnessで「何が見えていないのか」を特定する。 CUT B — FINAL ordinary Text render_pdf() に既存 text_objects のpresentation stageを一つ挿入。新storageなし、新Text authorityなし。 ただしUnicode/font boundaryを先に決める必要あり。 CUT C — FINAL System Token 既存token grammar / token_symbolsを使う。 mannequin resolverは使わない。 既存real runtime resolverの結果をFINAL server pathへどう渡すか、または既存product authorityをserver-sideからどう読むかを先に決める。 二重resolverを作ってはいけない。 Narrow construction order 今のSOURCEから安全に出せる順番は、 ① Sample Maskだけruntime観測 「Token mannequin配線なし」という現象を再確認。SOURCEでは既に配線済みなので、ここでいきなり修理しない。 ② FINAL ordinary TextのUnicode/font authorityを決定 現在のPDF primitiveで対応範囲を狭めるのか、Unicodeを扱える既存手段が別にあるのかを確認。 ③ FINAL real Token resolutionの正式な橋を決定 client-side実値resolver → FINALへ渡すのか、product側server authorityを読むのか。新authorityは作らない。 ④ そこまで決まって初めて render_pdf() にText stageを施工。 最終判定 FINAL Text disappearance：FOUND。 render_pdf() のcontent assemblyにText stageなし。 Text / token_symbols persistence loss：NONE。 FINALまでデータは生存。 Sample Mask mannequin missing wire：NOT FOUND。 SOURCE上は既にPreview mannequin pathを共有してる。 FINAL mannequin使用：不可。 FINAL real Token bridge：現在のserver pathには無し。STOP。 Unicode FINAL Text：既存Helvetica/WinAnsiでは現行Text contractを満たせない。STOP。 DEV166 paper rotation / locked-pair：未接触。 CONSTRUCTION：NONE。 要するに、しゃむの一言で言うと、 「FINALはほんとに線が切れてた★ でもSample Maskは線が切れてるんじゃなくて、SOURCEではもう繋がっとる。 そしてFINALへ繋ぐ直前に“実値Tokenの橋”と“日本語フォント”の関所が二つあった」 だった🕊️ 昨日 0:31あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev173-TOKEN-FONT-ALL-UNDERLINE-CONTROL.zipZip アーカイブ🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — CUT2 ROTATED TEXT MOVE / SIMPLE PROXY OPERATION GEOMETRY FEASIBILITY SOURCE INVESTIGATION ROLE: INVESTIGATION SEAT 1 NARROW SINGLE-ISSUE SOURCE INVESTIGATOR READ ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. NO SOURCE MODIFICATION. NO PRODUCT REDESIGN. ================================================== BACKGROUND ================================================== The current Text field has completed a SOURCE-supported CUT2 blueprint against DEV173. Relevant established architecture: - .kpdf-text-content remains the RAW / SAVED / EDITABLE Text authority. - .kpdf-system-presentation is derived visible presentation. - saved x/y authority already exists and must remain authoritative. - saved Text rotation authority already exists. - Text rotation is fixed to 45-degree increments by Human decision. - MOVE should operate from the visible presentation rather than exposing RAW System Token marker geometry. - actual Text remains inside the existing clipping boundary. - operation furniture may exist outside that clipping boundary. - no second Text authority or second presentation renderer is wanted. The current blueprint proposes an authority-free operation overlay and reuse of the existing movement machinery. During discussion of rotated Text MOVE, a possible complexity boundary was noticed. Before construction, Human proposed a deliberately simple conceptual alternative. ================================================== IMPORTANT — HUMAN DESCRIPTION IS A METAPHOR ================================================== Shamyue described the idea approximately as: "Treat it like an invisible animation cel. Pin the Text inside/on the cel. Do not make MOVE understand the complicated rotated Text shape. Move the simple invisible cel and let the Text move with it." Another metaphor was a simple placeholder image rectangle / proxy board. DO NOT interpret these metaphors literally as implementation orders. Human has NOT ordered: - a new DOM rectangle; - a specific bounding-box algorithm; - a canvas; - an actual parent/child reparenting structure; - a transform matrix system; - a new coordinate space; - a new saved object; - a new geometry authority. The Human intent is only: Can rotated Text MOVE be made substantially simpler by letting the operation machinery manipulate a simple derived/proxy operation surface instead of requiring MOVE itself to understand or manage the detailed rotated Text geometry? ================================================== YOUR ONLY JOB ================================================== Determine whether this simplification is technically feasible using the existing DEV173 architecture. Investigate the smallest relevant SOURCE area only. Do NOT construct it. Do NOT turn the metaphor into architecture before reading SOURCE. ================================================== QUESTIONS TO ESTABLISH ================================================== 1. EXISTING SIMPLE GEOMETRY Does DEV173 already expose, directly or trivially, a simple rectangular geometry corresponding to the current visible Text / presentation that could serve as an operation witness or proxy? Examples of things worth checking only if already relevant in SOURCE: - existing element rects; - existing getBoundingClientRect() use; - Text object geometry; - presentation geometry; - stage/paper-relative geometry; - existing overlay/furniture positioning machinery. Do not invent a new geometry system merely to answer YES. 2. ROTATED CASE When Text has an existing saved rotation such as 45°: - what geometry does the browser / existing DOM already make available? - is there a simple usable operation rectangle without manually modeling the rotated Text outline? - can that geometry be used without changing the Text's saved rotation authority? 3. "PINNED TO THE CEL" INTENT Determine the simplest SOURCE-supported equivalent of the Human metaphor: "move a simple proxy surface; Text follows." Do NOT assume this requires literal DOM parenting. Establish whether existing MOVE machinery can instead use a derived operation surface / hit area / rect while continuing to write movement back through the existing Text x/y authority. 4. AUTHORITY TEST Any feasible candidate must preserve: RAW Text authority → existing .kpdf-text-content visible presentation → existing derived presentation saved x/y → existing authority saved rotation → existing authority Token presentation → existing machinery clip → existing Text/content clipping machinery The proxy/cel concept, if feasible, must remain derived operation furniture / geometry only. It must NOT become a second persistent position or rotation authority. 5. COMPLEXITY TEST The purpose of this investigation is simplification. Therefore explicitly determine whether the candidate can be achieved with existing/trivial browser or DOM geometry and the existing movement engine. If making the proxy requires things such as: - new persistent coordinate state; - continuous synchronization between two independent authorities; - custom rotated-outline tracking; - a new transform hierarchy; - substantial matrix conversion machinery; - duplicate presentation; - duplicate x/y or rotation ownership; STOP. Report: 「あれ？ / うわぁ……」 Do not continue designing a clever proxy system. A proxy that requires a complex management machine defeats the Human intent. ================================================== DO NOT REOPEN ================================================== Do NOT redesign or reconsider: - Text RAW authority; - System Token grammar; - Token Font / Style / Underline / Size; - Token mannequin; - Common Main Power; - Text persistence schema; - x/y ownership; - rotation ownership; - 45° Human rotation increment; - Position Return; - paper rotation / paper-axis architecture; - clipping policy; - INPUT semantics; - NEUTRAL / INPUT / MOVE Human model. This investigation is only about whether rotated MOVE operation geometry can be made deliberately simple. ================================================== DEV173 / LATEST ARTIFACT BOUNDARY ================================================== Use the exact DEV173 artifact available to this investigation if it is the same known source witness used by the current Text blueprint: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev173-TOKEN-FONT-ALL-UNDERLINE-CONTROL.zip Known SHA256 from the Text field report: 382a738c022d96dfa14acdafe5d672dd11fe2319b8bc893e58112216da5c6c6f Verify before relying on it. DEV173 is the current SOURCE witness for this narrow feasibility check. Do NOT assume it is necessarily the latest runtime artifact in the overall product lineage. If investigation discovers that later changes to Text MOVE, rotation, presentation geometry, overlay geometry, or related operation machinery must be known before this question can be answered safely: STOP. Request the latest runtime artifact from Shamyue. Do not guess across an unknown later diff. ================================================== STOP RULE ================================================== The ordinary Workshop STOP rule is especially important here. If at any point you encounter: 「あれ？」 or 「うわぁ……」 STOP AT THAT POINT. Do not investigate through the anomaly. Do not diagnose beyond the discovered boundary. Do not repair it. Do not construct around it. Return the observation to Shamyue / Aide. ================================================== RETURN ================================================== Return a narrow SOURCE report containing: 1. Artifact verification 2. Existing relevant geometry path 3. Rotated 45° geometry behavior available from existing SOURCE/DOM 4. Simplest SOURCE-supported interpretation of the proxy/cel metaphor 5. Whether existing kpdfBeginTextMove() / x-y writeback can remain 6. Whether any new authority would be required 7. Whether operation overlay can participate without becoming authority 8. Complexity assessment 9. Relevant mobile / desktop consequence, only if directly implicated 10. WATCH / STOP findings 11. Latest-artifact requirement, if any Finish with exactly one feasibility disposition: RESULT: A. FEASIBLE — SIMPLE EXISTING/DERIVED GEOMETRY PATH FOUND or B. POSSIBLY FEASIBLE — NARROW FOLLOW-UP EVIDENCE REQUIRED or C. STOP — PROXY WOULD REQUIRE NONTRIVIAL NEW MACHINERY / AUTHORITY or D. STOP — LATEST ARTIFACT REQUIRED BEFORE SAFE CONCLUSION ================================================== AUTHORITY ================================================== This order authorizes SOURCE investigation only. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO CHILD BUILD. NO REPAIR. NO SOURCE MODIFICATION. NO RUNTIME CHANGE. NO PRODUCT DECISION. DEV173 must remain unchanged.表示を増やす表示を減らす 昨日 2:16あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev175-CUT2-D-TEXT-ROTATION-RESTORATION.zipZip アーカイブありがとーんヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ つぎきたー 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV175 PC DOOR CLOSE NARROW SOURCE INVESTIGATION ROLE: INVESTIGATION SEAT 1 NARROW SINGLE-ISSUE SOURCE INVESTIGATOR READ ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. NO SOURCE MODIFICATION. NO CHILD BUILD. NO PRODUCT REDESIGN. ================================================== BACKGROUND ================================================== CUT2-D was constructed on the known-PASS CUT2-A/B/C parent. Current child: DEV175 — CUT2-D TEXT ROTATION RESTORATION Human runtime testing has confirmed the intended rotation/MOVE behavior in the tested environment. However, during additional PC runtime testing, Shamyue observed a new specific issue. OBSERVED PC RUNTIME: 1. Select a Text. 2. Text becomes selected and operation furniture is present. 3. Click somewhere that is NOT: - the selected Text; and - its operation furniture. 4. EXPECTED: selection closes / Text returns to NEUTRAL / furniture withdraws. 5. ACTUAL: selection is NOT cleared. STOP occurred immediately at this observation. No cause investigation has yet been performed. No repair has been attempted. ================================================== IMPORTANT BOUNDARY ================================================== Do NOT assume this is: - a CUT2-D rotation bug; - a CUT2-A operation-state bug; - an overlay problem; - an event propagation problem; - a desktop pointer problem; - a legacy Door Close regression; - or a missing future CUT2-E feature. Those are possibilities only. Determine what current SOURCE actually says. Do not silently classify the issue before evidence. ================================================== YOUR ONLY JOB ================================================== Using the exact DEV175 SOURCE, determine why the PC runtime path does not clear Text selection when the Human clicks outside: - the selected Text; and - Text operation furniture. Trace only the minimum relevant SOURCE path needed to establish: 1. What currently owns Text selection. 2. What currently clears Text selection. 3. What desktop event is intended to trigger Door Close. 4. Whether DEV175 still contains that path. 5. Whether CUT2-A/B/C or CUT2-D changed, bypassed, shadowed, or blocked it. 6. Whether operation furniture propagation affects it. 7. Whether the failure is desktop-specific by SOURCE structure. 8. Whether the expected Human behavior can be restored using existing Door Close / selection machinery, or whether genuinely new machinery would be required. READ ONLY. ================================================== CURRENT HUMAN REQUIREMENT ================================================== The intended Human behavior is: SELECTED TEXT ↓ Human clicks/taps Text itself or its legitimate operation furniture ↓ KEEP selection / continue current operation context SELECTED TEXT ↓ Human clicks/taps anywhere else ↓ Door Close ↓ clear Text selection ↓ NEUTRAL ↓ operation furniture withdraws This requirement does NOT authorize construction. It is only the expected behavior against which current SOURCE should be examined. ================================================== KNOWN-PASS / PROTECTED BOUNDARIES ================================================== Do NOT redesign or investigate broadly into: - stable MOVE coordinates; - offsetLeft / offsetTop MOVE origin; - translateX(-50%) anchor; - Text rotation geometry; - 45° rotation authority; - Token mannequin renderer; - Token grammar; - Token Font / Style / Underline / Size; - saved x/y schema; - saved rotation schema; - paper-axis machinery; - clipping; - legacy Handle retirement; - future CUT2-E overlay finishing. Only inspect one of these if exact Door Close tracing necessarily crosses that seam. If it does, report the crossing and STOP expansion. ================================================== HISTORY CHECK ================================================== Before interpreting strange or apparently redundant Door Close wiring, check the relevant DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY evidence. History is evidence only. Do NOT treat history as runtime or product authority. Determine, if evidence exists: - whether Door Close behavior predates CUT2; - whether CUT2-A/B/C intentionally changed selection-close behavior; - whether CUT2-D touched it; - whether any relevant desktop/mobile distinction was intentional. Do not infer undocumented intent. ================================================== SOURCE TRACE REQUEST ================================================== Please identify the exact relevant functions/listeners/guards for: A. Text selection B. Text deselection / clear-selection C. Door Close D. desktop outside click/pointer path E. operation furniture event propagation F. NEUTRAL transition after deselection G. furniture withdrawal after deselection For each, classify: - PRESENT AND REACHABLE - PRESENT BUT BLOCKED/BYPASSED - PRESENT BUT NO LONGER WIRED - ABSENT - NOT RELEVANT ================================================== DEV174 → DEV175 NARROW COMPARISON ================================================== Because DEV174 is the known-PASS parent for CUT2-A/B/C and DEV175 added CUT2-D rotation restoration, compare only the relevant Door Close / selection / event wiring between DEV174 and DEV175. Determine whether CUT2-D materially changed the failing path. Do NOT perform a broad unrelated diff. ================================================== NO REPAIR YET ================================================== Even if the cause is obvious: DO NOT FIX IT. Do not produce a modified ZIP. Do not patch listeners. Do not add document-level handlers. Do not change stopPropagation/preventDefault behavior. Do not redesign operation state. Do not fold the repair into CUT2-E. We need the SOURCE witness first. ================================================== STOP RULE ================================================== If during investigation you encounter: 「あれ？」 「うわぁ……」 or find that the failure crosses into a larger unexpected authority or requires broader investigation: STOP AT THAT POINT. Do not diagnose farther. Report exactly what was observed and ask Shamyue for direction. ================================================== RETURN ================================================== Return a narrow report containing: 1. Exact DEV175 artifact identity / SHA256 2. Relevant history evidence 3. Current selection authority 4. Current Door Close authority 5. Exact desktop outside-click event path 6. Operation furniture propagation relationship 7. DEV174 → DEV175 relevant comparison 8. Evidence-backed cause, if established 9. Whether existing machinery is sufficient for a narrow restoration 10. Protected boundaries that need no change 11. WATCH / STOP findings Finish with exactly one: RESULT: A. CAUSE ESTABLISHED — EXISTING DOOR CLOSE MACHINERY SUPPORTS NARROW RESTORATION B. CAUSE ESTABLISHED — NEW MACHINERY WOULD BE REQUIRED C. STOP — ADDITIONAL NARROW SOURCE EVIDENCE REQUIRED D. STOP — UNEXPECTED AUTHORITY / DEPENDENCY BOUNDARY FOUND READ ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR.表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev176-PC-DOOR-CLOSE-RESTORATION.zipZip アーカイブつぎきたよー 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — CUT2-E UI CLEANUP / RELOCATION CANDIDATE DEPENDENCY & RISK CLASSIFICATION AUDIT ROLE: READ-ONLY UI DEPENDENCY / RISK AUDITOR INVESTIGATION ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. NO SOURCE MODIFICATION. NO UI REMOVAL. NO UI RELOCATION. NO EVENT REWIRING. NO CHILD BUILD. NO PRODUCT REDESIGN. ================================================== PROTECTED PARENT ================================================== Current protected known-PASS parent: DEV176 PC DOOR CLOSE RESTORATION HUMAN RUNTIME KNOWN-PASS DEV176 is the current protected baseline. Its preserved lineage includes DEV175 CUT2-D known-PASS behavior. DO NOT reopen or modify either lineage during this audit. ================================================== WHY THIS AUDIT EXISTS ================================================== CUT2-E is entering UI / operation-furniture finishing. Before removing or relocating visible UI, Human has chosen the following workflow: 1. Human identifies UI candidates. 2. SOURCE investigation assigns technical risk. 3. LOW-risk candidates are collected for a separate combined-candidate investigation. 4. Only after that investigation does the field write a construction blueprint. 5. Construction occurs only after approval. This request is STEP 2 ONLY. Your job is NOT to decide whether Human wants a UI element. Human product decisions below are already supplied. Your job is to determine: "What is technically attached to this furniture, and how dangerous would removal / later relocation be?" ================================================== HUMAN UI LIST — AUTHORITATIVE FOR THIS AUDIT ================================================== The following candidates were identified from the current actual UI. -------------------------------------------------- CANDIDATE A TEXT SECTION — TOP SIZE-ONLY HORIZONTAL FURNITURE -------------------------------------------------- Location: Above the Text 1–5 group. Human description: 「テキスト箱一団の上にサイズ箱だけ横並び」 Human decision: REMOVE. The visible size-only horizontal furniture is no longer wanted. Audit whether it is truly removable UI furniture or whether any current Text size authority, initialization, synchronization, persistence, capacity, Token behavior, or other dependency still passes through it. -------------------------------------------------- CANDIDATE B TEXT BOX PRESENTATION COLOR LIST — RIGHT-SIDE ☒ -------------------------------------------------- Location: Text BOX presentation color/style list. Visible at the right side of individual rows. Human description: 「カラー一覧のよこにある ☒」 Human decision: REMOVE. Human already expects that wiring inspection may be necessary. Audit especially carefully. Determine exactly what the ☒ currently does and whether it participates in any of: - Text deletion; - style/color deletion; - Token deletion; - LAST-ONE protection; - Capacity release/recalculation; - row/index ownership; - persistence; - restore; - presentation rebuild; - selection; - Common behavior; - any other authority or destructive action. Do NOT assume that because Human wants the visible ☒ removed, its current underlying function may simply be deleted. Separate: VISIBLE UI REMOVAL RISK from: UNDERLYING FUNCTION / AUTHORITY RETIREMENT RISK if they differ. -------------------------------------------------- CANDIDATE C IMAGE ATTACHMENT UI FAMILY -------------------------------------------------- Current visible family includes Image Attachment furniture such as: - Replace Image - image preview/current image furniture - Move - Size - Rotate or equivalent current image-operation furniture - Reset Size - Remove Image - associated controls belonging to this current Image Attachment group Human decision: DO NOT REMOVE AS A FAMILY. PLANNED FUTURE RELOCATION: move upward in the UI. Important Human preservation requirement: Image MOVE / SIZE / ROTATION functionality is to remain. This audit must determine relocation risk only. Do NOT design the new location yet. Do NOT relocate anything. -------------------------------------------------- CANDIDATE D CREDIT UI -------------------------------------------------- Human decision: KEEP FUNCTION. PLANNED FUTURE RELOCATION: move upward in the UI. Audit dependencies and relocation risk only. No relocation now. -------------------------------------------------- CANDIDATE E 「掲載可」 / PUBLICATION-PERMISSION UI -------------------------------------------------- Human decision: KEEP FUNCTION. PLANNED FUTURE RELOCATION: move upward in the UI. Audit dependencies and relocation risk only. No relocation now. -------------------------------------------------- CANDIDATE F PDF FILE NAME UI -------------------------------------------------- Human decision: KEEP FUNCTION. PLANNED FUTURE RELOCATION: move upward in the UI. Audit dependencies and relocation risk only. No relocation now. -------------------------------------------------- CANDIDATE G PAPER / 用紙 DESCRIPTION UI -------------------------------------------------- Human decision: KEEP INFORMATION. PLANNED FUTURE RELOCATION: move upward in the UI. Audit whether this is: - static explanatory furniture only; - dynamically generated; - coupled to paper configuration; - coupled to layout/preview behavior; - referenced by JS; - referenced by accessibility/UI logic; - otherwise technically significant. No relocation now. ================================================== NOT PART OF THIS AUDIT ================================================== Human has also mentioned a possible future design involving links / navigation between upper and lower UI areas. That is NOT part of this audit. Do NOT design: - upper → lower links; - lower → upper links; - anchors; - navigation furniture; - scroll behavior; - new section routing. Future relocation destination/layout is also NOT being designed here. ================================================== SEPARATE CUT2-E OPERATION-FURNITURE REQUIREMENT ================================================== A separate Human decision has already been made for selected Text operation-choice furniture: Text selected → operation-choice buttons are available Human chooses INPUT or MOVE → the choice has been made → operation-choice furniture should withdraw Reason: - it is no longer needed after Human has made the decision; - it obstructs accurate positioning / operation; - it is not required to cancel or leave selection; - DEV176 Door Close already owns deselection / NEUTRAL exit. DO NOT CONSTRUCT THIS YET. During this audit, inspect it only enough to assign a technical risk class for later CUT2-E work. Call this: CANDIDATE H TEXT OPERATION-CHOICE FURNITURE WITHDRAWAL Determine: - what currently owns its visibility; - whether visibility is derived from selection, operationMode, or another state; - whether INPUT/MOVE choice handlers can withdraw it without changing operation authority; - whether hiding/removing the visible choice furniture affects KEEP classification; - whether it affects Mobile Writing Desk; - whether it affects ROTATE furniture; - whether it affects legacy Handles; - whether re-selection naturally makes the choice furniture available again; - whether any new state would be required. Human behavior is already decided. Risk only. ================================================== PROTECTED DEV176 BOUNDARY ================================================== DEV176 established and Human runtime proved: - empty paper → CLOSE - ordinary UI outside paper → CLOSE - Text A → Text B → TRANSFER - legitimate selected-Text KEEP boundary → PASS - Mobile Writing Desk KEEP boundary → established as part of the restoration Do NOT change or reinterpret these during this audit. If any candidate removal / relocation / withdrawal would intersect these boundaries, record the dependency and raise its risk. ================================================== PROTECTED DEV175 CUT2-D LINEAGE ================================================== Do NOT reopen: - NEUTRAL / INPUT / MOVE authority; - RAW Text authority; - presentation/mannequin architecture; - MOVE coordinates; - offsetLeft / offsetTop; - translateX(-50%); - rotation; - dataset.rotation; - 45° rotation behavior; - Token mannequin; - Token rendering; - saved x/y; - saved rotation; - Position Return; - paper-axis independence; - clipping; - existing mobile pointer safety. If a candidate unexpectedly owns or influences any protected behavior, that is important risk evidence. Do NOT repair it. ================================================== RISK CLASSIFICATION ================================================== Assign EACH candidate one technical risk class. Use exactly: LOW MEDIUM HIGH BLOCK / UNKNOWN -------------------------------------------------- LOW -------------------------------------------------- Removal/relocation/withdrawal appears local and boring. Examples of evidence supporting LOW: - presentation-only DOM; - static explanatory furniture; - local listener with no persistent/state authority; - visibility-only change using existing state; - no cross-component dependency; - no protected runtime boundary; - no save/restore/schema involvement; - no destructive semantics. LOW does NOT mean "construct now." It means suitable for the next combined LOW-candidate investigation. -------------------------------------------------- MEDIUM -------------------------------------------------- Technically manageable but attached to meaningful existing behavior. Examples: - existing event wiring must be moved/preserved; - several listeners/selectors reference the furniture; - relocation requires preserving DOM lookup assumptions; - UI is coupled to current selected state; - small but real KEEP/Door Close interaction exists; - function must survive while visible furniture changes. MEDIUM candidates should not be silently mixed into the LOW cleanup set. -------------------------------------------------- HIGH -------------------------------------------------- Candidate touches product/runtime authority or destructive/persistent behavior. Examples: - deletion authority; - Capacity; - LAST-ONE; - persistence/restore; - Token grammar/presentation authority; - cross-family behavior; - Common wiring; - saved schema; - protected MOVE/rotation machinery; - authority currently lives in or depends on the furniture being removed. Human may still want the UI gone. HIGH means removal needs its own deliberate construction plan. -------------------------------------------------- BLOCK / UNKNOWN -------------------------------------------------- Exact dependency cannot be established safely from current SOURCE, or an unexpected authority/boundary is found that prevents meaningful risk classification. Do not guess. STOP that candidate at the evidence boundary. ================================================== FOR EACH CANDIDATE RETURN ================================================== For A through H, return: 1. Candidate name 2. Human intent - REMOVE - RELOCATE LATER - WITHDRAW AFTER HUMAN CHOICE 3. Exact current DOM / selector / relevant SOURCE identity 4. Visible purpose 5. Actual runtime purpose 6. Event listeners / handlers attached 7. State read 8. State written 9. Persistence / restore involvement 10. Other SOURCE references to this furniture 11. Dependencies on other UI/runtime machinery 12. Whether visible furniture and underlying authority can be separated 13. Protected-boundary intersections, if any 14. Expected technical action if Human intent is later implemented — description only, NOT construction 15. Risk class: LOW / MEDIUM / HIGH / BLOCK / UNKNOWN 16. Evidence-backed reason for that class 17. WATCH / STOP notes ================================================== SPECIAL CHECK — CANDIDATE B ☒ ================================================== Do not give Candidate B a single vague answer such as: "delete button = HIGH." Explicitly determine whether there are separable layers: B1. visible ☒ furniture removal B2. existing action/function currently triggered by ☒ B3. any authority/state that must remain even if B1 disappears If B1 can be LOW while B2/B3 are HIGH, report that split. Do NOT collapse them into one risk rating if SOURCE supports different ratings. ================================================== SPECIAL CHECK — CANDIDATE H ================================================== Human does NOT want operation-choice furniture to disappear only during active drag. That earlier behavior is superseded. Current Human requirement: Text selected → Human sees operation choice Human chooses INPUT or MOVE → decision furniture withdraws The selected Text remains selected. Chosen operation mode remains active. Door Close remains the exit mechanism. Do not accidentally audit the withdrawn: "hide during drag → restore after drag" design. ================================================== CROSS-CANDIDATE CHECK ================================================== After individual ratings, perform a READ-ONLY cross-check. Determine: - which LOW candidates are actually independent; - whether any two LOW candidates share a listener/state/selector; - whether removing several together creates a risk absent individually; - whether any candidate should be excluded from the first cleanup bundle. Do NOT construct the bundle. This is evidence for the NEXT investigation only. ================================================== RETURN SUMMARY TABLE ================================================== Finish with a compact table: Candidate | Human Intent | Risk | Main Reason | Eligible for LOW Bundle? A B / B1-B3 if split is required C D E F G H Then provide: PROPOSED LOW-RISK POOL List ONLY candidates supported by SOURCE as LOW. Do not promote MEDIUM/HIGH candidates merely because they are convenient. ================================================== STOP RULE ================================================== Immediate STOP on: 「あれ？」 「うわぁ……」 If during inspection you encounter: - unexpected authority; - unexplained historical wiring; - contradiction with Human runtime; - unknown destructive behavior; - unexpected Common dependency; - protected DEV176 Door Close / KEEP / TRANSFER interaction; - protected DEV175 CUT2-D interaction; - ambiguity that Shamyue can resolve. STOP at that exact point. Do NOT continue diagnosis past the anomaly. Do NOT repair. Do NOT redesign. Do NOT construct. Report what was observed and wait. ================================================== FINAL RESULT ================================================== Finish with exactly one: RESULT: A. RISK CLASSIFICATION COMPLETE — LOW-RISK POOL READY FOR NEXT AUDIT B. PARTIAL CLASSIFICATION COMPLETE — STOPPED AT IDENTIFIED BOUNDARY C. STOP — HUMAN DECISION REQUIRED D. STOP — UNEXPECTED AUTHORITY / DEPENDENCY FOUND READ ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO SOURCE MODIFICATION. NO CHILD BUILD. DEV176 REMAINS PROTECTED. CUT2-E CONSTRUCTION HAS NOT STARTED.表示を増やす表示を減らす 昨日 4:59あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev177-CUT2-E-B1-H-FURNITURE-WITHDRAWAL.zipZip アーカイブ🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — CUT2-E F — PDF FILE NAME FORM-OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY NARROW TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REQUEST ROLE: TECHNICAL INVESTIGATION SEAT READ ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. NO SOURCE MODIFICATION. NO CHILD BUILD. NO PRODUCT REDESIGN. NO UI RELOCATION. ================================================== PROTECTED PARENT ================================================== Use exact protected parent: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev177-CUT2-E-B1-H-FURNITURE-WITHDRAWAL.zip SHA256: b83b09de5b1ef81f3d944211ad5e2d80312a698621d0a9c275149d50499dd8a0 Status: HUMAN RUNTIME KNOWN-PASS Do NOT modify this artifact. ================================================== BACKGROUND ================================================== CUT2-E candidate F is: PDF File Name Human-visible furniture relocation. Human decision is already resolved: - PDF File Name is simply filename furniture from the Human perspective. - Human-visible furniture should be placed upward, near the Save / Load UI area. - This is a temporary / easily movable Human UI seat. - It does NOT become part of Refill authority. - It does NOT become part of Stock authority. - It does NOT become part of Save / Load authority. - Existing PDF File Name functional authority must remain single. The accepted F construction blueprint protected: - existing validation - existing confirmation semantics - AJAX action kaia_pdf_free_confirm_issue_name - server persistence - Working participation - hidden/form-side persistence - FINAL / preflight - PDF issuance - single issue-name authority No second issue-name authority or synchronization system is allowed. ================================================== CONSTRUCTION STOP THAT TRIGGERED THIS REQUEST ================================================== Before DEV178 construction, field construction observed: - current Human-visible #kpdf-issue-name furniture is inside #kpdf-design-form - the intended upper Save / Load neighborhood is outside #kpdf-design-form Therefore a simple direct DOM relocation would cross a form ownership boundary. The accepted construction blueprint explicitly required STOP if direct relocation crossed a form/ownership boundary relied upon by existing behavior. Construction stopped immediately. DEV177 remains untouched. No DEV178 child was created. No workaround was attempted. ================================================== ONLY QUESTION ================================================== Determine from exact DEV177 SOURCE: What exact existing F behavior, if any, actually depends on the Human-visible PDF File Name furniture remaining a descendant of #kpdf-design-form? ================================================== NARROW SOURCE CHECKS ================================================== Inspect ONLY the seams necessary to answer that question. For the current PDF File Name furniture, identify: 1. Exact relevant DOM nodes. At minimum witness: - #kpdf-issue-name - #kpdf-issue-name-value - #kpdf-issue-name-ok - related guide / feedback furniture where relevant State which are: - Human-visible interaction furniture - hidden/value authority - form-submitted fields, if any - purely presentation/feedback 2. Form ownership. For each relevant node, determine whether existing behavior depends on: - ancestor #kpdf-design-form - native HTML form submission - FormData constructed from #kpdf-design-form - serialize / querySelector / named-field lookup scoped to the form - submit/reset events - browser form ownership - any other form-descendant assumption Do not infer. Cite exact SOURCE seams. 3. Confirmation path. Trace ONLY enough of: #kpdf-issue-name → #kpdf-issue-name-ok → validation → kaia_pdf_free_confirm_issue_name → confirmed value / persistence to determine whether moving Human-visible furniture outside the form would break that path. 4. Hidden authority relationship. Determine specifically whether #kpdf-issue-name-value or any other authoritative F field MUST remain inside #kpdf-design-form for existing: - Working save - restore / load - persistence - FINAL / preflight - issuance Do NOT investigate those systems generally. Only identify the existing dependency seam that makes form membership necessary or unnecessary. 5. Existing separation possibility. Answer whether SOURCE already permits this narrow architecture without creating a second authority: UPPER SAVE / LOAD NEIGHBORHOOD Human-visible F furniture | existing connection | #kpdf-design-form / existing authority hidden/value machinery This is NOT authorization to design or implement a bridge. Only determine whether the existing source wiring already supports such separation, or whether some additional narrow connection would be required. ================================================== DO NOT DO ================================================== Do NOT: - choose a new UI destination - move any DOM - construct DEV178 - create a proxy input - create a duplicate hidden field - create synchronization - add form="..." attributes - create new JS wiring - redesign F - redesign Save / Load - inspect Refill or Stock except where an exact F dependency directly references them - investigate unrelated CUT2-E candidates - repair anything discovered ================================================== PROTECTED / OUT OF SCOPE ================================================== Do not reopen or alter: - DEV177 B1 + H - DEV176 Door Close / KEEP / TRANSFER - DEV175 MOVE / rotation - Text / Token - Capacity - Working / Stock / Refill architecture generally - Common routing - FINAL / preflight / issuance generally G remains DEFERRED. A / B2 / B3 / C / D / E are outside this investigation. I remains future / not rated. ================================================== STOP RULE ================================================== If investigation encounters: - unexpected second issue-name authority - conflicting ownership - surprising duplicate IDs - unrelated new dependency - requirement to redesign persistence - requirement to modify Working / FINAL / issuance architecture - any "あれ？ / うわぁ……" anomaly STOP AT THAT EXACT POINT. Report the observation only. Do not continue diagnosis. Do not repair. Do not broaden investigation. ================================================== RETURN FORMAT ================================================== Return exactly one: A. EXISTING SEPARATION SUPPORTED SOURCE proves Human-visible F furniture can live outside #kpdf-design-form while existing authoritative machinery remains in its current ownership, without second authority/synchronization. Include exact evidence and boundary. B. NARROW CONNECTION REQUIRED SOURCE proves some Human-visible F furniture cannot simply leave the form, but the exact dependency is identified. State: - exact dependent node - exact form dependency - exact behavior it protects - smallest technical seam that a future blueprint would need to address INVESTIGATION ONLY. Do NOT design or implement the connection. C. FORM MEMBERSHIP REQUIRED / SEPARATION NOT NARROW Existing F architecture materially requires the visible furniture to remain within the form and separation would enter protected architecture. State exact evidence. D. STOP / ANOMALY State only the observed anomaly and exact SOURCE location. ================================================== REPORT REQUIREMENTS ================================================== Include a compact CHECK LOG: TARGET METHOD SOURCE SEAM OBSERVATION RESULT Clearly distinguish: SOURCE FACT SPECIALIST INFERENCE No product recommendation unless specifically necessary to explain the technical boundary. END OF NARROW INVESTIGATION REQUEST表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:んー…これ、コラージュ台のなかのテキスト空だけど…まあいいか★ 昨日 9:49あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev187-OUTSIDE-FRAME-OPERATION-BUTTONS.zipZip アーカイブちぃと調べてくりゃしゃんせ。 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — UI FINISHING CART / PREVIEW FOLLOW RELATIONSHIP CURRENT SOURCE DEPENDENCY INVESTIGATION READ ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. NO SOURCE MODIFICATION. NO REDESIGN. ROLE: INVESTIGATION SEAT NARROW CURRENT-SOURCE / HISTORICAL-PLACEMENT DEPENDENCY AUDIT. ================================================== 1. CURRENT BASELINE ================================================== Current Human Runtime known-PASS baseline: DEV187 DEV187 has passed Human Runtime testing. Protect all DEV187 known-PASS behavior. If exact DEV187 artifact filename / SHA256 / identity is required, obtain it from actual field evidence. Do not infer or invent it. ================================================== 2. HUMAN-OBSERVED PROBLEM ================================================== There is an existing Human UI mechanism referred to as: 台車 / CART Its relationship with Preview is currently broken. Human observation: > 台車とPreviewの追従関係が壊れている。 This investigation exists because the current failure may NOT be a simple single-event regression. The UI has undergone multiple historical furniture-placement changes. Therefore old assumptions about: - DOM parentage - furniture location - coordinate basis - scroll/follow target - Preview location - event entrance - layout container may still remain in current machinery. Human concern: > 過去の配置関係で阿呆になっている可能性がある。 ================================================== 3. YOUR ONLY JOB ================================================== Determine the CURRENT actual relationship between: CART and PREVIEW and identify the narrow evidence-backed reason the expected follow behavior no longer works. DO NOT FIX IT. DO NOT DESIGN THE REPAIR. DO NOT CLEAN OLD CODE. DO NOT MOVE FURNITURE. ================================================== 4. IDENTIFY THE CART EXACTLY ================================================== From current DEV187 SOURCE, identify what Human-visible mechanism is the actual "台車". Report: - relevant DOM element(s) - IDs/classes - owning container - current physical DOM location - relevant JS functions/listeners - state/variables used by the cart - what Human action causes it to operate - what it currently attempts to move/follow/control Do not infer from naming alone. Trace the actual active path. ================================================== 5. IDENTIFY THE PREVIEW EXACTLY ================================================== Identify the current authoritative Human Preview structure relevant to the cart. Report: - Preview DOM element(s) - current owning container - current physical DOM location - any wrapper/stage/paper relationship relevant to cart follow behavior - relevant IDs/classes - relevant active JS references Do NOT investigate unrelated Preview rendering or product geometry. ================================================== 6. ESTABLISH THE INTENDED FOLLOW RELATIONSHIP FROM EVIDENCE ================================================== Using current SOURCE first, and DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md only as historical evidence where useful, determine what relationship the existing machinery expects. Examples of questions to answer: - Does CART follow Preview? - Does Preview follow CART? - Does CART reposition a wrapper containing Preview? - Is the relationship scroll-based? - position-based? - DOM-parent-based? - event-based? - class/state-based? - viewport-based? Do not choose one of these by assumption. Report what SOURCE actually establishes. ================================================== 7. HISTORICAL PLACEMENT CHECK ================================================== This is the important part of the investigation. Determine whether active current cart machinery still assumes an OLD furniture placement or OLD DOM relationship. Look specifically for evidence such as: - selectors pointing to an old location - parent/ancestor assumptions that are no longer true - sibling assumptions that are no longer true - offset calculations based on an old container - fixed positioning assumptions from a previous UI layout - stale wrapper references - event listeners attached to a former movement/follow entrance - CSS positioning rules whose containing block changed - duplicated old/new furniture where active code reaches the wrong one - historical compatibility plumbing that still participates in the current cart path Do NOT remove any such machinery. Witness only. ================================================== 8. CURRENT FAILURE BOUNDARY ================================================== Trace only far enough to establish: EXPECTED PATH: Human action → CART mechanism → expected Preview follow relationship CURRENT ACTUAL PATH: Human action → what actually happens → exact point where the expected relationship is lost We want the FIRST evidence-backed broken boundary. Once that boundary is established: STOP THE TRACE. Do not continue exploring adjacent machinery merely because it is interesting. ================================================== 9. CLASSIFY THE RESULT ================================================== Return one of these evidence-based classifications: A — LOCAL / BORING The existing architecture is still correct and one narrow current connection is missing/stale. B — HISTORICAL PLACEMENT MISMATCH Active machinery still relies on an older DOM/layout/furniture placement that no longer matches the current UI. C — MULTIPLE ACTIVE PATHS Old and new paths both remain active or competing, making the current authority/follow path ambiguous. D — DIFFERENT CAUSE The failure is clearly caused by something else. Describe only the proven cause. E — NOT PROVEN Current evidence is insufficient to identify the failure boundary safely. ================================================== 10. IMPORTANT AUTHORITY QUESTIONS ================================================== Explicitly report whether CART currently owns or changes any product authority. Check narrowly whether it touches: - actual paper geometry - saved paper orientation - Text x/y - Image x/y - rotation - Preview-only positioning - viewport/scroll positioning - persistent product state We need to distinguish: HUMAN UI TRANSPORT / VIEWPORT FURNITURE from: PRODUCT GEOMETRY AUTHORITY. Do not redesign either one. ================================================== 11. DEV187 PROTECTION ================================================== Do not disturb or propose changes to the newly known-PASS: Operation / Selection Frame Outside Mask. Protect: - paper mask behavior - actual Text clipping - outside-mask operation frame - outside-mask Human hit area - operation buttons - MOVE - rotation If CART investigation unexpectedly intersects DEV187 operation-frame machinery: STOP THERE and report the intersection. Do not continue tracing through DEV187 protected machinery. ================================================== 12. OTHER OUT-OF-SCOPE SYSTEMS ================================================== Do not investigate or modify: - Portrait Preview clipping / Fit - Full View button - left/right flip - Credit - publication permission - Paper/Image [?] - Text 1–5 linked Presentation Board - Image Attachment product machinery - final UI beautification - Binder Even if one is physically nearby. ================================================== 13. DEVELOPMENT HISTORY ================================================== Check DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md if it contains relevant evidence about: - CART introduction - Preview placement - Preview relocation - wrapper/container changes - cart/follow repairs - known compatibility plumbing History is evidence only. It is NOT specification authority. Current active SOURCE remains the runtime witness. ================================================== 14. STOP RULE ================================================== Standing Shamyue STOP rule applies. Immediate STOP on: - unexpected second Preview authority - unexpected second CART authority - unexplained duplicate active paths - product geometry involvement not expected from the cart - DEV187 operation-frame intersection - unclear current/legacy ownership - source/history contradiction requiring Human interpretation - あれ？ - うわぁ…… STOP AT THE FIRST SUCH BOUNDARY. Do not diagnose farther. Do not repair. Do not search outward. Report the observation to Shamyue. ================================================== 15. REQUIRED REPORT ================================================== Return a concise investigation report containing: 1. exact artifact inspected 2. SHA256 3. CART identity / DOM location 4. Preview identity / DOM location 5. expected follow relationship from SOURCE evidence 6. current actual path 7. first broken boundary 8. whether historical placement assumptions remain active 9. classification A / B / C / D / E 10. whether product geometry/persistence is involved 11. relevant DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY evidence, if any 12. narrow source evidence / CHECK LOG 13. STOP / WATCH DO NOT INCLUDE A CONSTRUCTION PATCH. DO NOT CREATE A CHILD ZIP. DO NOT MODIFY SOURCE. ================================================== INVESTIGATION SHORT VERSION ================================================== 台車がPreviewについてこない。 ただし、 「配線一本切れてるな★」 と決めつけない。 過去に家具配置をかなり変更しているため、 台車が昔のPreview住所・親・wrapper・座標基盤を まだ覚えて阿呆になっていないか確認する。 CURRENT SOURCEで： 台車は誰？ ↓ Previewは今どこ？ ↓ 本来どう追従する？ ↓ 今どこまで信号が来る？ ↓ 最初に切れている境界はどこ？ まで。 壊れた地点が分かったらSTOP。 直さない。 掃除しない。 施工図も勝手に作らない。 「昔の住所に迎えに行ってました★」 なら、それを証拠付きで持って帰る。 READ ONLY. COMPLETE ORDER → GO.表示を増やす表示を減らす 昨日 11:07あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev188-PORTRAIT-PREVIEW-FULL-VIEW.zipZip アーカイブ🕊️ ADDENDUM — HUMAN OUTPUT AUTHORITY Apply this Human Decision to the PREVIEW / ISSUE OUTPUT WIRING investigation. This supersedes any uncertainty in the investigation order concerning Serial / Repost-marking output destinations. ================================================== HUMAN-DEFINED OUTPUT MATRIX ================================================== PREVIEW: Serial → DO NOT DISPLAY Repost / 掲載可 marking → DO NOT DISPLAY PDF: Serial → DISPLAY / ISSUE WITH ACTUAL SERIAL VALUE Repost / 掲載可 marking → DO NOT DISPLAY JPG: Serial → DO NOT DISPLAY Repost / 掲載可 marking → DISPLAY WHEN APPLICABLE ================================================== IMPORTANT ================================================== Therefore: Absence of Serial from Preview = CORRECT. Absence of Repost marking from Preview = CORRECT. Absence of Repost marking from PDF = CORRECT. Absence of Serial from JPG = CORRECT. Do NOT report these as missing cables. The important output boundaries are: PREVIEW = neither Serial nor Repost marking PDF = Serial only JPG = Repost marking only For PDF Serial: Preview mannequin: XXXX-XXXX must NEVER be used as the issued PDF value. PDF must use the actual issued Serial authority/path. For JPG Repost marking: do not introduce Serial merely because PDF and JPG share composition machinery. ================================================== INVESTIGATION IMPACT ================================================== Continue investigating the current wiring. But evaluate Serial / Repost behavior against this Human-defined matrix, not against generic Preview/FINAL assumptions. Especially determine whether current architecture can preserve: PDF → actual Serial only JPG → Repost marking only without cross-contamination. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. HUMAN OUTPUT AUTHORITY ADDENDUM COMPLETE.表示を増やす表示を減らす 昨日 13:28あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev191-WP-PDF-DESTINATION-COMPLETE-BAKE-PROOF.zipZip アーカイブちとさー、これしらべて。 プレビューボタンおすとつっこんだ画像が最上になる。 レイヤーの順番や条件みてきてほしい。 可能なら画像アップロードのは最下層にしたい。 もし固定順なら逆順にすればいいのか それとも画像のみ指定で最下層になるのか。 馬鹿で怠惰なやつかあればそれで。表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:ヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ 昨日 17:49あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev201-SAVE-FIRE-PAGE-MEMORY-FALLBACK.zipZip アーカイブちと確認しておくれ 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV201 SAVE★ FIRING INTERVAL PAGE-MEMORY FALLBACK NARROW SOURCE INSPECTION READ ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. NO SOURCE MODIFICATION. NO NEW CHILD ZIP. TARGET: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev201-SAVE-FIRE-PAGE-MEMORY-FALLBACK.zip EXPECTED SHA256: 30e0e055201431e37d0a0ba5c50825a598f322490033d76a51de9650ef1460d6 PARENT: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev200-FIVE-FIXED-SLOT-ROTATING-POOL.zip EXPECTED SHA256: b4159c2a01b58f1cb25a0eba860fc12c021bef10eb8f2f4fb181e5518a7f4663 PURPOSE: Verify ONLY the narrow DEV201 fallback repair before Human Runtime or resuming the larger DEV200 stress inspection. CHECK: 1. Exact DEV201 artifact identity. 2. DEV200 → DEV201 diff is limited to: - kaia-pdf.php - DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md 3. Accepted Refill Save★ records firing time in page-local JS memory. 4. Page-local memory is updated BEFORE localStorage write attempt. 5. localStorage.setItem failure does not erase or bypass page-local firing time. 6. localStorage.getItem failure does not disable same-page 3000 ms gate. 7. Effective firing time is the newest legitimate value from: - page-local memory - localStorage 8. Refill Save★ inside 3000 ms is prevented. 9. A rejected Save★ inside 3000 ms does NOT: - choose a slot - advance cursor - write artifacts - switch CURRENT - reach the Refill Save POST path 10. After 3000 ms, accepted behavior resumes normally. 11. Stock Save remains outside this gate. 12. No new: - queue - lease - worker - server completion detection - cross-tab synchronization - retry - failed-slot state - cleanup - rollback 13. Five-slot rotation / CURRENT / CURSOR / THREE VALID logic is unchanged. STOP RULE: At first genuine anomaly or ambiguity: STOP EXACTLY THERE. Do not investigate farther. Do not repair. DELIVERABLE: DEV201 NARROW FALLBACK INSPECTION STATIC RESULT: PASS / FAIL / WATCH Include exact file/function/logic evidence. Do NOT perform the 10,000-attempt rotation stress yet. SHORT VERSION: 時計の予備だけ見ろ★ 五人にはまだ撃つな★表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev200-FIVE-FIXED-SLOT-ROTATING-POOL(1).zipZip アーカイブ🕊️ DEV201 NARROW FALLBACK INSPECTION — RESUME Previous STOP reason: Exact DEV200 parent bytes were unavailable, so DEV200 → DEV201 real diff boundary could not be independently proven. Now provide BOTH exact artifacts: PARENT: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev200-FIVE-FIXED-SLOT-ROTATING-POOL.zip EXPECTED SHA256: b4159c2a01b58f1cb25a0eba860fc12c021bef10eb8f2f4fb181e5518a7f4663 CHILD: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev201-SAVE-FIRE-PAGE-MEMORY-FALLBACK.zip EXPECTED SHA256: 30e0e055201431e37d0a0ba5c50825a598f322490033d76a51de9650ef1460d6 RESUME FROM CHECK 2. First independently hash both artifacts. Then perform an actual DEV200 → DEV201 file/content diff. Required boundary: Only: - kaia-pdf.php - DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md may differ. If any other file differs: STOP EXACTLY THERE. If Check 2 PASS: continue the previously authorized narrow DEV201 checks 3–13 only. Do NOT run the 10,000-attempt rotation stress yet. Do NOT construct. Do NOT repair. Do NOT create a child ZIP. SHORT VERSION: 親きた★ 二枚重ねしろ★ 時計の予備だけ見ろ★ 五人にはまだ撃つな★表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev202-THREE-VALID-ORDINARY-PNG-VALIDATION.zipZip アーカイブ🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV202 THREE VALID ORDINARY PNG VALIDATION INDEPENDENT INSPECTION RESUME FROM PREVIOUS PART 8 STOP ROLE: INDEPENDENT INSPECTION SEAT READ ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. NO SOURCE MODIFICATION. NO PRODUCT REDESIGN. NO NEW CHILD ZIP. ================================================== BACKGROUND / PREVIOUS INSPECTION ================================================== The previous DEV201 independent five-slot inspection reached: PART 8 — THREE-ARTIFACT TRANSACTION BOUNDARY and STOPPED correctly. Previous evidence before that STOP included: - five-slot SOURCE model inspection - exhaustive 25 starting states - PASS / FAIL branches - seven stress outcome families - 25 starting states × 10,000 accepted attempts per family - total 1,750,000 accepted Save★ attempts - no rotation anomaly observed before STOP - storage boundary inspected - CURRENT write protection inspected The STOP reason was narrow: fixed_slot_completion() considered each artifact present/valid using only: is_file() + filesize() > 0 Therefore THREE PRESENT + NONEMPTY was proven, but THREE VALID ordinary PNG was not. ================================================== HUMAN / PRODUCT DECISION ================================================== The PART 8 STOP was resolved by Human/Product authority. For each required Fixed Visual artifact: Preview PDF JPG VALID intentionally means ordinary consumer PNG validity. Required boundary: - file exists - file is non-empty - recognizable as an image / getimagesize() succeeds - detected MIME is image/png - width > 0 - height > 0 This is intended only to establish an ordinary usable PNG boundary suitable for normal consumer handling / household or convenience-store printing workflows. This is NOT commercial publishing / print-production certification. Do NOT require or infer: - pixel-content comparison - semantic image inspection - visual fidelity scoring - printer-specific certification - DPI quality judgment - color-management certification - print simulation - commercial publishing preflight - custom sophisticated PNG parser - new artifact authority ================================================== TARGET ================================================== Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev202-THREE-VALID-ORDINARY-PNG-VALIDATION.zip EXPECTED SHA256: 56bb6f05f5c707bdabb7993e88167719aa626b673e50932b3a416ec18713cf7a EXACT PARENT: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev201-SAVE-FIRE-PAGE-MEMORY-FALLBACK.zip EXPECTED SHA256: 30e0e055201431e37d0a0ba5c50825a598f322490033d76a51de9650ef1460d6 ================================================== PART A — ARTIFACT IDENTITY ================================================== First independently verify exact DEV202 SHA256. Also verify exact DEV201 parent SHA256 if the already-inspected exact parent artifact remains available in this inspection seat. If artifact identity mismatches: STOP. ================================================== PART B — REAL DEV201 → DEV202 DIFF ================================================== Perform actual parent/child file comparison. Expected changed files only: - kaia-pdf/kaia-pdf.php - kaia-pdf/DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md No other file addition, deletion, or modification is expected. Inspect the actual kaia-pdf.php diff. Expected Product logic change: ONLY the Fixed Visual ordinary PNG completion validation. Version/history changes are expected. If unrelated runtime/Product machinery changed: STOP EXACTLY THERE. ================================================== PART C — RESUME PREVIOUS PART 8 THREE-ARTIFACT TRANSACTION BOUNDARY ================================================== Inspect ACTUAL DEV202 SOURCE. For EACH required artifact: preview.png pdf.png jpg.png prove that VALID now requires all of: 1. is_file() 2. filesize() > 0 3. getimagesize() succeeds 4. detected MIME is exactly image/png 5. width > 0 6. height > 0 Confirm arbitrary non-empty bytes alone cannot satisfy this gate. Confirm a file merely named *.png does not become VALID solely because of its filename. Confirm the validation uses actual inspected image information. ================================================== PART D — THREE-WAY AND ================================================== Confirm completion still requires: Preview VALID AND PDF VALID AND JPG VALID Explicitly inspect the logical boundary for: 0 valid artifacts 1 valid artifact 2 valid artifacts 3 valid artifacts Expected: 0 → incomplete 1 → incomplete 2 → incomplete 3 → complete No single artifact and no pair may produce complete=true. ================================================== PART E — CURRENT SWITCH REVALIDATION ================================================== Inspect the actual CURRENT promotion path. Confirm CURRENT switch cannot occur merely because three files exist. Confirm the target is checked through the strengthened ordinary-PNG completion gate before CURRENT reference changes. Required: all THREE ordinary PNG VALID → promotion may proceed anything less → CURRENT remains unchanged If there is any alternate active path that can switch CURRENT without the strengthened THREE VALID gate: STOP. ================================================== PART F — NO NEW VALIDITY AUTHORITY ================================================== Confirm DEV202 did NOT create: - validity registry - valid-slot database - failed-slot registry - dirty state - retry state - cleanup state - rollback state - PNG metadata authority - second artifact authority Validation should remain an ordinary read/check of the physical files at the existing completion boundary. The result must not become a new persistent Product authority. ================================================== PART G — PRESERVED FIVE-SLOT MACHINERY ================================================== Confirm by real DEV201 → DEV202 diff that the previous five-slot machinery remains unchanged: - exactly five fixed physical slots - deterministic 01→02→03→04→05→01 rotation - CURRENT semantics - CURSOR semantics - CURRENT-skip - cursor advance behavior - FAIL preserves CURRENT - PASS switches CURRENT only to successful target - current-slot write rejection - fixed artifact names - promotion by reference switch - no cargo copy/move/rename/rebake - no sixth slot - no dynamic attempt storage Do NOT rerun the previous 1,750,000 accepted-attempt stress merely for ceremony if the actual diff proves this machinery unchanged. The previous stress evidence may remain evidence for unchanged logic. If the diff touches that machinery materially: STOP and report it rather than silently reusing the old simulation. ================================================== PART H — DEV201 SAVE★ GATE PRESERVATION ================================================== Confirm the DEV201 narrow firing-interval repair remains unchanged: - 3000 ms Human Refill Save★ gate - page-local firing timestamp - localStorage fallback behavior - newest legitimate timestamp wins - rejected shot does not reach POST/rotation - Stock Save remains outside the gate Do NOT reopen the full previous clock inspection unless a new contradiction is discovered. ================================================== PART I — AUTHORITY DIRECTION ================================================== Confirm Fixed Visual artifacts remain DERIVED CARGO only. They must NOT become authority for: - Working - Refill Design - Stock - Recall - Text - Token CURRENT remains only the reference to the currently successful derived Fixed Visual set. PNG validation must not reverse that authority direction. ================================================== PART J — RESUME PREVIOUS PART 9+ ================================================== ONLY IF PARTS A–I PASS: resume the previously interrupted independent inspection from the remaining uncompleted sections after old PART 8. Complete the previous inspection of: - promotion mechanics - absence of extra civilization - authority direction / dependency boundary - relevant regression boundary Use previous completed evidence where the exact unchanged SOURCE permits. Do NOT manufacture redundant stress merely to increase test counts. ================================================== STOP RULE ================================================== At the FIRST genuine: 「あれ？」 「うわぁ……」 STOP EXACTLY THERE. Do NOT continue diagnosis. Do NOT search for a repair. Do NOT modify source. Do NOT create a child ZIP. Do NOT reinterpret Product authority. Return only: - exact file/path/function - exact observed behavior - smallest evidence - why it conflicts with accepted authority ================================================== DELIVERABLE — ONLY IF NO STOP ================================================== Return: DEV202 INDEPENDENT INSPECTION — RESUMED STATIC RESULT: PASS / FAIL / WATCH Include: ARTIFACT IDENTITY PASS / FAIL REAL DEV201 → DEV202 DIFF PASS / FAIL ORDINARY PNG VALIDATION PASS / FAIL THREE-WAY AND PASS / FAIL CURRENT PRE-SWITCH REVALIDATION PASS / FAIL NO NEW VALIDITY AUTHORITY PASS / FAIL FIVE-SLOT MACHINERY PRESERVED PASS / FAIL DEV201 3000 ms FALLBACK PRESERVED PASS / FAIL PROMOTION MECHANICS PASS / FAIL NO EXTRA CIVILIZATION PASS / FAIL AUTHORITY DIRECTION PASS / FAIL REGRESSION BOUNDARY PASS / FAIL Also explicitly state the status of the previous evidence: 25-state exhaustive simulation: RETAINED / INVALIDATED 1,750,000 accepted-attempt stress evidence: RETAINED / INVALIDATED Human Runtime remains separate and is NOT replaced by this inspection. ================================================== SHORT VERSION ================================================== DEV202持ってきた★ 親子を二枚重ねしろ★ 検品所だけ変わったことを確認しろ★ 箱があるだけでヨシにするな★ 普通のPNGとして開けるか見ろ★ 三枚全部ヨシになってからCURRENT札ｽｯ★か確認しろ★ 出版会社は呼ぶな★ 五人が無変更なら175万発を撃ち直すな★ 時計も無変更なら分解し直すな★ 変なの見た瞬間、手を離せ★ NO CONSTRUCTION. おかわりーだよー！ヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev203-REFILL-SAVE-ATTEMPT-RESULT-RETURN.zipZip アーカイブほーら追加ヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV203 REFILL SAVE★ ATTEMPT RESULT RETURN + PROCESSING / FAILURE HUMAN FURNITURE INDEPENDENT INSPECTION + RESULT-PROPAGATION / FAILURE-BRANCH STRESS CHECK ROLE: INDEPENDENT INSPECTION SEAT READ ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. NO SOURCE MODIFICATION. NO PRODUCT REDESIGN. NO NEW CHILD ZIP. ================================================== TARGET ================================================== Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev203-REFILL-SAVE-ATTEMPT-RESULT-RETURN.zip EXPECTED SHA256: 3c8d9a4b2216eccd628b0b8011580ca5b4ac4526b6e4d95e4d1ef4c5e9b2ab16 PARENT: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev202-THREE-VALID-ORDINARY-PNG-VALIDATION.zip EXPECTED PARENT SHA256: 56bb6f05f5c707bdabb7993e88167719aa626b673e50932b3a416ec18713cf7a First verify exact artifact identity. If TARGET identity mismatches: STOP. If exact PARENT needed for comparison is unavailable: STOP and report that narrow limitation. Do NOT reconstruct either artifact from memory. ================================================== PURPOSE ================================================== DEV203 claims a deliberately boring repair: Existing local SUCCESS / FAILURE results already existed. DEV203 must NOT invent a new failure authority. It should only: 1. return existing generation FAILURE upward; 2. return existing artifact-write FAILURE upward; 3. keep the Human blocked with: セーブ中 during the accepted Save★ attempt; 4. preserve the existing successful final boundary: complete === true AND switched === true 5. on FAILURE show: 失敗しました。 リトライしますか？ [ リトライ ] [ 閉じる ] 6. make Retry nothing more than a fresh Human ordinary Save★. Your job is to attack those claims as hard as reasonably possible WITHOUT constructing new production machinery. ================================================== HUMAN PRODUCT MODEL — FIXED ================================================== The intended model is: Save★ → セーブ中 → existing work SUCCESS: complete === true AND switched === true → existing successful Witness FAILURE: existing participating operation returns NO → セーブ中 ends → failure / Retry furniture Human Retry: → NEW ordinary Save★ → existing 3000 ms gate applies → existing CURSOR / fixed-slot machinery chooses next legal target Failure does NOT mean: - repair previous job - resume previous Promise - retry previous physical slot - wait for previous failed work - diagnose jam - clean failed slot - rollback - automatic retry ================================================== FIRST — EXACT DIFF AUDIT ================================================== Compare DEV203 against exact DEV202. Report the exact changed-file set. Expected narrow changed files: - kaia-pdf.php - DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md Inspect the ACTUAL diff. Do NOT accept the construction report as evidence. Determine whether DEV203 introduced anything outside the authorized boundary. Check especially for accidental changes to: - Refill persistence - Working / Refill / Stock / Recall authority - five fixed-slot pool - CURRENT - CURSOR - target selection - CURRENT-skip - cursor advancement - 3000 ms gate - page-memory fallback - ordinary PNG validation - THREE VALID - pre-switch validation - CURRENT promotion - Fixed Visual composition - Text / Token authority - destination policy - unrelated UI Any unexplained behavioral diff: STOP. ================================================== CHECK 1 GENERATION FAILURE PROPAGATION ================================================== Trace the actual DEV203 source through: kpdfRunThreeFixedBaseProof() kpdfOpenPreview() kpdfBakeWitness() autoBaseDone(...) and any new narrow result callback / return path. Verify that DEV203 REUSES the existing generation failure observations. Known existing classes include: - layout safety preflight failure - html2canvas missing - image decode/load rejection - html2canvas Promise rejection - PNG Blob unavailable For EACH reachable existing failure class, determine: A. Is the existing NO still detected by the same authority? B. Does it now reach the one-attempt parent result? C. Can the parent receive FAILURE exactly once? D. Can execution accidentally continue into the next destination after the failure? E. Can SUCCESS callback still fire after FAILURE? F. Can FAILURE callback fire after SUCCESS? G. Can the attempt become permanently unresolved because neither final callback fires? We are specifically looking for boring callback / Promise hazards such as: FAIL → local display → return → parent never hears FAIL → parent hears → later stale success also fires FAIL → callback twice FAIL → next destination starts anyway FAIL → processing furniture never closes Do NOT repair any finding. First genuine anomaly: STOP. ================================================== CHECK 2 MANUAL PREVIEW ISOLATION ================================================== Construction report claims: automatic Fixed Visual route → failure returns upward manual Preview → existing local behavior remains Verify this distinction from actual source. DEV203 must NOT accidentally convert ordinary manual Preview into the Save★ failure / Retry workflow. Manual Preview must not unexpectedly: - show Save★ Retry furniture - fire a Refill Save - alter CURRENT - alter CURSOR - enter fixed-slot promotion - become part of the Save★ attempt authority If manual Preview behavior was broadened: STOP. ================================================== CHECK 3 ARTIFACT WRITE FAILURE PROPAGATION ================================================== Trace: kpdfWriteFixedTargetSlot(results, done) and the actual Ajax: .done(...) .fail(...) plus the server endpoint result: wp_send_json_success(...) wp_send_json_error(...) Verify: A. Existing server write authority remains unchanged. B. Existing Ajax success/failure remains the measurement. C. Write FAILURE reaches the parent attempt result. D. Write FAILURE does not accidentally become SUCCESS. E. Failure is returned once. F. No later CURRENT promotion is initiated after write failure. G. No direct same-slot retry occurs. H. No failed-slot state is created. I. No duplicate Human result is shown from both the old local Witness path and the new upper result path. Pay special attention to the previous DEV202 behavior where write failure could directly show a failure Witness without returning to the parent. DEV203 must not create: old failure Witness + new failure dialog as two competing final Human authorities. ================================================== CHECK 4 THREE VALID FAILURE ================================================== Trace the existing: fixed_slot_completion() Verify DEV202 ordinary PNG validity remains exactly authoritative. Required result remains: Preview VALID AND PDF VALID AND JPG VALID Exercise / simulate the logical case: three write operations return, but completion is false. Expected: - no successful CURRENT promotion - attempt resolves as FAILURE - processing furniture ends - success Witness is NOT produced - Retry path becomes available to Human Do NOT weaken or strengthen PNG validity. ================================================== CHECK 5 CURRENT SWITCH RESULT ================================================== Trace: fixed_current_switch() and its browser receiver. Verify server-side pre-switch: fixed_slot_completion() still occurs immediately before promotion. Exercise / simulate result families: 1. complete=false 2. switch request application failure 3. Ajax/network failure 4. complete=true + switched=true Expected final classification: ONLY: complete === true AND switched === true = SUCCESS Everything else must NOT be presented as successful completion. Do NOT solve network acknowledgement ambiguity. If server may have switched CURRENT but browser loses acknowledgement, that remains ordinary result uncertainty. DEV203 is NOT authorized to add reconciliation. ================================================== CHECK 6 SUCCESS PATH — EXACTLY ONCE ================================================== Trace a fully successful attempt: Human Save★ → accepted → POST → redirect → Fixed Visual generation → Preview generated → PDF generated → JPG generated → writes → THREE VALID → pre-switch revalidation → CURRENT switch → final result Verify: - processing is visible during intended browser attempt - final SUCCESS is produced exactly once - processing ends - existing successful Witness appears - failure dialog does not appear - no second Save is fired - no automatic action follows Witness Check for callback duplication / stale callbacks where practical. ================================================== CHECK 7 FAILURE HUMAN FURNITURE ================================================== Inspect the actual DEV203 failure furniture. Required Human text: 失敗しました。 リトライしますか？ Required Human controls: リトライ 閉じる Verify FAILURE: - removes / ends セーブ中 blocking state - presents the failure decision furniture - does not automatically retry - does not choose a slot - does not repair anything - does not mutate CURRENT merely because the dialog opened - does not mutate CURSOR merely because the dialog opened Human decision furniture must remain presentation / operation furniture, not new persistence authority. ================================================== CHECK 8 CLOSE BUTTON ================================================== Exercise / simulate: FAILURE → failure dialog → Human presses 閉じる Expected: - dialog closes - no Save★ fires - no generator starts - no Ajax write starts - no CURRENT switch starts - no slot selection occurs - no automatic retry later Wait / delayed callback conditions should be inspected where practical. A stale timer or callback must not fire a fresh Save merely because the dialog was closed. ================================================== CHECK 9 RETRY BUTTON ================================================== Exercise / simulate: FAILURE → failure dialog → Human presses リトライ Verify Retry uses the ordinary Human Refill Save★ route. It MUST NOT: - directly call Fixed Visual generation - directly call artifact write - directly call CURRENT switch - directly select a slot - explicitly select the failed slot - bypass the normal form path - bypass the existing 3000 ms gate Expected meaning: Human presses Retry = Human presses Save★ again. ================================================== CHECK 10 3000 ms GATE INTERACTION ================================================== This deserves aggressive inspection. DEV203 report says: if Human presses Retry while the ordinary Save★ button is still disabled by the 3000 ms gate, no fresh Save is fired and the failure dialog remains. Verify actual source behavior. Exercise / simulate at least: A. Retry attempted before 3000 ms eligibility. B. Retry attempted at / just after eligibility. C. repeated Human Retry presses if the furniture remains visible. D. normal Save★ presses around the same boundary. Required invariant: No path bypasses the existing gate. Also verify the page-local memory fallback from DEV201 remains intact. Do NOT redesign the gate. ================================================== CHECK 11 PROCESSING FURNITURE ACROSS REDIRECT ================================================== Trace the two physical halves: BEFORE NAVIGATION: accepted Human Save★ → processing / セーブ中 AFTER REDIRECT: Fixed Visual marker page → processing / セーブ中 → browser attempt → final result Verify there is no ordinary reachable state such as: - Fixed Visual attempt running while Human controls are exposed - attempt already finished but セーブ中 remains forever - failure dialog appears behind a still-blocking overlay - success Witness appears behind a still-blocking overlay - processing is dismissed before final result - marker page shows processing but never starts the attempt No persistent job tracker is authorized. This is only page-local Human furniture around the existing flow. ================================================== CHECK 12 FIVE-SLOT / CURRENT / CURSOR REGRESSION ================================================== Reuse the previous DEV201/DEV202 five-slot model where possible. Do NOT invent a new rotation algorithm. Confirm DEV203 did not change the existing one. At minimum inspect / simulate representative states including: CURRENT = 01, CURSOR = 01 CURRENT = 01, CURSOR = 02 CURRENT = 03, CURSOR = 03 CURRENT = 05, CURSOR = 01 CURRENT = 05, CURSOR = 05 Include: SUCCESS generation FAILURE write FAILURE THREE VALID FAILURE switch FAILURE Required invariants: - exactly five physical slots - candidate CURRENT is skipped - CURRENT changes only on valid successful promotion - failed attempt does not promote invalid target - retry does not demand the previous failed target - ordinary next attempt follows existing CURSOR authority - no sixth slot - no failed-slot registry - no cleanup / rollback machinery If practical, repeat the previous exhaustive 25 CURRENT×CURSOR state simulation against the unchanged DEV203 rotation source. If source identity/diff proves the relevant rotation machinery byte-for-byte unchanged, previous model evidence may be RETAINED, but say so explicitly. ================================================== CHECK 13 NO NEW STATE / NO NEW CIVILIZATION ================================================== Search DEV203 source for newly introduced state or machinery related to: - failure - retry - busy - job - queue - worker - lease - lock - polling - dirty - cooling - recovery - rollback - cleanup A local ephemeral callback or dialog-open state needed solely to render the current page is not automatically prohibited. The question is whether DEV203 created a NEW PRODUCT / PERSISTENT AUTHORITY. Confirm it did not. Specifically verify no new: - option - post meta - DB table - persistent browser storage - server registry - slot status - job identifier - failure history - retry history was introduced. ================================================== CHECK 14 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY ================================================== Verify exactly one root: DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY.md Confirm it records DEV203 as development evidence only. It must not be consumed by runtime code. Check that history does not claim Human Runtime PASS unless actual Human evidence exists. Current construction report supports: STATIC PASS Human Runtime: NOT YET COMPLETE Do not silently upgrade that status. ================================================== SAFE STRESS / SIMULATION AUTHORIZATION ================================================== You ARE authorized to aggressively test the logic in a disposable, non-production inspection environment where possible. Examples: - callback harness - Promise resolution/rejection simulation - mocked Ajax result families - repeated invocation - timing-boundary simulation - CURRENT/CURSOR state-space simulation - static control-flow tracing This is READ-ONLY inspection of the delivered artifact. Do NOT modify the artifact to make it pass. Do NOT create a repaired child. Do NOT add production test hooks. When mocking an existing result: mock only the EXISTING result boundary. Examples: generation worker returns existing FAILURE Ajax write returns existing FAILURE complete=false switched=false Do NOT invent a new product failure condition and then judge DEV203 against that invented condition. ================================================== IMPORTANT TEST PHILOSOPHY ================================================== Try to break the plumbing, not redesign the factory. Useful attacks: "NO came back — did somebody still say YES?" "callback fired twice — did we fire twice?" "processing is up — can Human still shoot?" "failure dialog closed — did anything fire later?" "Retry pressed too early — did it bypass the gate?" "write failed — did CURRENT still move?" "generation failed — did next destination continue?" "success happened — did failure furniture also appear?" Not useful: "What if we add a distributed queue?" "What if we need exact-once network semantics?" "What if we track every failed slot forever?" "What if we build a recovery daemon?" No Kafka beside the musket★ ================================================== STOP RULE ================================================== At the FIRST genuine: 「あれ？」 「うわぁ……」 STOP EXACTLY THERE. Do NOT: - investigate farther - diagnose root cause - repair - search adjacent machinery - continue remaining stress cases - create a child Return only the observed anomaly and enough exact evidence for Human / Foreman to decide the next action. Examples requiring STOP: - failure can later become success - success and failure can both render - a callback can resolve twice meaningfully - processing can become permanently stuck on a reachable branch - Retry bypasses the ordinary Save★ path - Retry bypasses the 3000 ms gate - Close can cause later automatic firing - failure can promote CURRENT - DEV203 changed rotation authority - new persistent failure/retry/job authority exists - manual Preview became coupled to Save★ failure handling - a meaningful existing NO still fails to reach final Human result ================================================== DELIVERABLE — ONLY IF NO STOP ================================================== Return: DEV203 INDEPENDENT INSPECTION + RESULT-PROPAGATION / FAILURE-BRANCH STRESS REPORT Include: TARGET identity PARENT identity exact diff boundary RESULT: PASS or PASS WITH WATCH or FAIL Then report: - generation failure propagation - manual Preview isolation - artifact-write failure propagation - THREE VALID failure - CURRENT switch result - success exactly-once behavior - failure furniture - Close behavior - Retry behavior - 3000 ms gate interaction - processing across redirect - five-slot/CURRENT/CURSOR regression - new-state search - DEVELOPMENT-HISTORY check For simulations, report: - method - tested result families / state count - observed invariant - PASS / FAIL Separate clearly: STATIC / SIMULATED EVIDENCE from: HUMAN RUNTIME EVIDENCE Do NOT call simulated browser behavior Human Runtime PASS. ================================================== SHORT VERSION ================================================== DEV203を独立席でぶん殴れ★ ただし製品は直すな★ 既存NOを一個ずつ投げて、 ちゃんと最後まで 「失敗★」 になるか見ろ。 途中でNOなのに後からYESになるな★ YESとNOを二枚出すな★ セーブ中を置き忘れるな★ 失敗したらセーブ中を下ろせ★ 閉じるで何も撃つな★ リトライは普通のSave★だけ撃て★ 3秒柵を飛び越えるな★ CURRENTを勝手に動かすな★ 前の銃を直しに行くな★ 五丁を六丁にするな★ Kafkaを持ってくるな★ そして一個でも 「うわぁ……」 が出たら、 その場で工具を床に置け★表示を増やす表示を減らす 昨日 22:08あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev206-PROCESSING-VISUAL-CURTAIN.zipZip アーカイブ閉じたヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ ついでに臨時バイトは一部正社員になってあと退職した！ そして以下調査してくれい！ うい！ヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ ここは**施工指示じゃなく「配管図を確定するためのREAD ONLY調査」**を先にやればいい。 調査班に渡すなら、必要なのはこの7本で足りると思う。 1. CURRENT Fixed Visual Base の実体と取得経路 fixed_current_ref() が指すCURRENTから、Preview / PDF / JPGそれぞれのPNG現物へどう到達できるか。既存の「CURRENTを読むconsumer」が存在するかも確認。新しい取得機構は作らない。 2. Token予約席データの保存形を確定 text_objects、短記号、token_symbols、presentation情報などから、実際に何が保存されているか。特に各Tokenについて x / y / rotation / font / size / underline / alignment / reserved width のどれが既存authorityとして残っていて、WEB側がそのまま読めるか。 「PNGから透明部分を推測」は禁止。 3. Actual Counter / Timestamp / Serial の権威元と発行タイミング Counter実値はどこで確定するか、Timestampはどこで確定・formatされるか、Serialはどこで発行されるか。さらに、それぞれが render_pdf() 等へ入る時点で既に取得可能なのかを追う。値を新しく生成しない。 4. 既存Token resolver/presentation経路のactual対応範囲 kpdfResolveToken() / kpdfBuildPresentation() が、WP mannequinだけでなくWEB actual destinationをどこまで既に理解しているかを確認。 Preview / PDF / JPGについて、既存destination policyと actual value branch が本当に存在するなら、その入力・出力をSOURCE FACTとして確定する。 5. WEB三出力の現行実経路 WEB Preview / PDF / JPGをそれぞれ入口から最終出力まで追う。特に「全部が render_pdf() 系なのか」「JPG/Previewには別consumerがあるのか」。ここで旧direct rendererとFixed Visual architectureがどう共存しているかを確定する。 6. 旧 render_pdf() の現在の責任範囲 Background / Frame / Image以外に何を描いているか、Text・Creator Credit・Token等を誰が担当しているか。そしてFixed Visual CURRENTを下敷きにすると、既存描画と二重描画になるもの／不要になるものがあるか。 ここは「廃止するか」は決めない。事実だけ取る。 7. 最重要：最小接続が成立するかの判定 調査結果から、 CURRENT Fixed Visual PNG + 保存済みreserved seat geometry + existing actual values の3点が既存SOURCEだけで揃うか確認する。揃うなら「どの既存関数同士に内線を一本つなげばよいか」まで。揃わないなら、何が欠けているため第二authorityが必要になるのか、その地点でSTOP。 調査班への禁止事項も強くしておいた方がいい。 > READ ONLY。施工・修理・設計変更禁止。 「こうすれば作れる」は調査結果と分離。 新座標、新renderer、新Token geometry、新保存形式、PNG解析、OCR、pixel scan、旧renderer撤去を勝手に決定しない。 最初の「あれ？／うわぁ……」が出た場合は、その地点で調査自体をSTOPして返す。 で、返却物は図面一枚分くらいの構造でいい。 SOURCE FACT Human WEB Issue → ? → actual values → ? → output AUTHORITY MAP CURRENT base → 誰 Token seat → 誰 Counter value → 誰 Timestamp value → 誰 Serial value → 誰 destination policy → 誰 CONNECTION VERDICT BORING WIRING POSSIBLE BLOCKED — MISSING EXISTING FURNITURE STOP — CONFLICTING AUTHORITY のどれか。 これなら調査後にこっちで、 > 「あ、椅子も人間も住所録も全部ある。電話線一本★」 なのか、 > 「椅子はWP工場にしかなく、WEB工場には住所が届いてない★」 なのか、 > 「WEB側に別の椅子職人が既にいる。勝手に繋ぐな★」 なのかが判別できる。 まず配管図。施工はそのあと★ 🕊️🔎表示を増やす表示を減らす 今日 6:35あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev205-IMAGE-MOVE-ROTATION-PNG-WITNESS.zipZip アーカイブKaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev204-AUTO-PREVIEW-CLOSE-CONTROL-SUPPRESSION.zipZip アーカイブちいとかこれの解析たのむわー うん、それ良いと思う。むしろ今ちょうど外部解析向き★ DEV205で二つ同時にFAILが出たから、ここで私が修理しながら原因を探すより、**無傷の204を解析席へ渡して「現状の配線図だけ取ってきて」**が安全。 特に知りたいのは、推測や修理案じゃなくSOURCE事実として、 Text：Workbenchの x/y/rotation が、Preview → PNG bakeへどう渡るか。どこでcloneされ、どのstyle/dataが保持・再構成されるか。 Upload Image：クリック、selection、旧MOVE switch、pointer drag、image_x/y、image_rotation、clamp、mask/clip、z-index/pointer-eventsの全配線。 Image MOVE switch：ON/OFFが単なるgateなのか、それ以外の副作用を持つのか。 Text操作箱：なぜマスク外でも点線箱を表示・掴めるのか。そのDOM親、座標系、pointer入口、Door Close。 Preview/PNG：Workbench DOMをそのまま使うのか、別DOMを作るのか。rotation/positionの最終consumerがどこか。 ロック：現在Upload Imageを掴めなくしている可能性のある既存lock/curtain/pointer-events/selection条件。ただし原因認定はせず候補を列挙。 で、解析席には 207を渡さない方がいいと思う。 まず204単独で「今この家の配管がどうなってるか」を描かせる。207を一緒に渡すと、どうしても「207との差分＝修理箇所」というバイアスが入る。 204配管図が返ってきたあとに、こっちで207参考書と照合する。 鳩にするなら、私からREAD ONLY・NO REPAIR・NO REDESIGNの解析指示書を切れるよ。今回はかなり明確に仕事を限定できる★ヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ🔧 204は母体、205で移動系さわったが変化なし 表示を増やす表示を減らす 今日 12:49あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev207-IMAGE-WITNESS-ROTATION-PNG-CONSUMER.zipZip アーカイブすまんが、うまくいかなくてなー こっちもみてくれ 🕊️ KAIA PDF FREE — DEV207 IMAGE DOTTED WITNESS / HUMAN ENTRY RUNTIME-NO-VISIBLE-CHANGE SOURCE AUDIT ROLE: INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION SEAT READ ONLY. NO CONSTRUCTION. NO REPAIR. NO SOURCE MODIFICATION. NO PRODUCT REDESIGN. NO NEW CHILD ZIP. ================================================== TARGET ================================================== Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev207-IMAGE-WITNESS-ROTATION-PNG-CONSUMER.zip EXPECTED SHA256: 8da41015fee105b8f3cd6c3142c0f901f16d78dbe3aaf267a30c528e3a3f84ac First verify exact artifact identity. This DEV207 is a FAILED CHILD. Do NOT treat it as known-good. Do NOT repair it. ================================================== PARENT / LINEAGE CONTEXT ================================================== Authoritative parent: Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev204-AUTO-PREVIEW-CLOSE-CONTROL-SUPPRESSION.zip Expected parent SHA256: 045cd34ac97ec49ab827d4917c7cc25254df8f9bd742d2923ca51dc369376718 Other children / historical artifacts are NOT the target of this audit. In particular: - DEV205 failed child is not authoritative. - DEV206 static-block child is not authoritative. - older DEV207 ROTATION-OPERATION-RESTORATION is REFERENCE ONLY. Do NOT compare against those artifacts during this first investigation. Audit the supplied failed DEV207 itself. ================================================== HUMAN RUNTIME WITNESS ================================================== Human installed / tested the supplied DEV207 child. Expected visible change included an Upload Image dotted operation witness and corresponding Image operation furniture. Human report: 「変化みられない」 No expected visible Image dotted witness / operation change was observed. Therefore: RUNTIME QA = FAIL. This failure occurred before PNG rotation QA could be meaningfully completed. ================================================== KNOWN INTENDED DESIGN ================================================== The intended narrow design was: 1. Upload Image actual visual remains visually below authored Text / Token presentation. 2. Selecting / operating Image must NOT promote the actual Image above Text / Token presentation. 3. A dotted Image operation witness may exist above production visuals as Human operation furniture. 4. Human should operate the dotted witness, not require the actual Image itself to become the foreground pointer target. 5. The witness is NOT a second geometry authority. 6. Existing Image authorities remain: image_x image_y image_width image_height image_rotation 7. Intended movement flow: Human pointer ↓ Image dotted witness ↓ existing image_x / image_y ↓ clamp ↓ actual Image paint ↓ witness synchronization 8. Intended rotation flow: witness rotation action ↓ existing image_rotation ↓ actual Image / Preview consumer ↓ witness synchronization 9. Image witness should follow the existing Text operation-frame concept: - operation furniture outside the clipped paper where appropriate - visible / grabbable even when the represented visual extends outside the paper/mask - Door Close must not fire merely because Human is interacting with the witness itself 10. No new MOVE authority. No new rotation authority. No new geometry authority. ================================================== IMPORTANT KNOWN PREVIOUS SOURCE FACTS ================================================== From the parent DEV204 source audit: A. Text operation frame is a sibling operation layer outside the paper. B. Text operation witness is not the geometry authority. It follows the actual Text geometry. C. The Text operation-frame layer uses overflow-visible behavior, allowing Human operation furniture outside the clipped paper. D. Old Image MOVE checkbox is not saved design authority. It acts substantially as an interaction gate. E. Parent Image actual visual normally sits below authored Text presentation. F. Parent Preview is rebuilt from saved design in kpdfOpenPreview(). G. PNG bake photographs the Preview clean DOM via html2canvas. H. Existing rotation authorities are stored, but DEV204 had known missing rotation consumers in relevant Workbench / Preview paths. Those rotation gaps are KNOWN investigation context. Do NOT STOP merely because you rediscover those known DEV204 rotation gaps. ================================================== YOUR PRIMARY QUESTION ================================================== Determine, from the supplied failed DEV207 SOURCE: WHY WOULD THE HUMAN SEE NO VISIBLE IMAGE DOTTED WITNESS / IMAGE OPERATION CHANGE AT RUNTIME? Do NOT repair it. Do NOT propose a redesign before establishing the actual source path. ================================================== AUDIT 1 — WITNESS EXISTENCE ================================================== Find the exact Image dotted witness implementation. Report: - exact element / class / ID names - where it is created - whether it exists in static HTML or is created by JS - exact DOM parent - whether that parent exists at runtime - whether creation code is actually invoked - invocation conditions - whether an existing Upload Image is required - whether an attachment ID / image URL / other state is required - initial display / hidden state - relevant CSS display / visibility / opacity - relevant z-index - pointer-events - overflow / clipping behavior Do not infer visibility merely from the presence of CSS. Trace the actual creation → append → display path. ================================================== AUDIT 2 — HUMAN ENTRY ================================================== Trace exactly how Human is supposed to begin Image operation. We specifically need to know whether the failed DEV207 actually implements: A. witness already available as a Human pointer surface or B. Human must first click actual Image to create/select/show witness or C. another button / state / hidden MOVE gate must first be activated or D. some other source path. Report the exact SOURCE truth. This is especially important because the accepted Human design does NOT require promoting the actual Image above Text / Token presentation merely to begin operation. ================================================== AUDIT 3 — IMAGE OPERATION STATE ================================================== Identify every state / class / variable involved in: - Image witness visible - Image selected - Image MOVE active - witness being dragged - Image rotation action - Image Door Close - Text operation lock while Image operation is active For each, identify: TRIGGER → STATE CHANGE → CONSUMER Determine whether any required state can never be entered from the visible Human UI in this DEV207. ================================================== AUDIT 4 — POINTER ROUTING ================================================== Trace pointer routing for the Image witness. Check: - pointerdown target - capture / bubbling interactions - Stage pan exclusions - Text operation-frame interference - root Door Close capture listener - pointer-events on witness and its ancestors - any overlay / layer that can intercept the pointer - whether the witness is geometrically present but unreachable - whether a parent with pointer-events:none still permits the intended child pointer behavior in the actual CSS/DOM arrangement Report SOURCE facts. Do not assume browser behavior beyond what is necessary; clearly label any browser-dependent inference. ================================================== AUDIT 5 — WITNESS GEOMETRY SYNC ================================================== Trace the intended witness geometry source. Confirm whether it reads existing: image_x image_y image_width image_height image_rotation and whether synchronization is actually called: - after initial Workbench load - after Image paint - after Attach Image - after movement - after rotation - after resize if relevant - after restore / saved design load A witness implementation that exists but is never initially synchronized could explain "no visible change"; however DO NOT adopt that as the cause unless SOURCE proves the path. ================================================== AUDIT 6 — OLD IMAGE MOVE GATE ================================================== Inspect the existing old Image MOVE checkbox / .is-move mechanism ONLY as it exists in this failed DEV207. Determine: - whether DEV207 forces it ON - whether it remains OFF - whether the new witness depends on it - whether actual Image pointer-events still depend on it - whether witness pointer handling depends on it - whether its old z-index promotion remains active - whether Human-visible old furniture was hidden - whether hiding the furniture accidentally made a required gate unreachable Again: NO REPAIR. We only need the actual dependency map. ================================================== AUDIT 7 — ROTATION / PNG SECONDARY CHECK ================================================== Only after the witness/Human-entry audit is complete, record the static DEV207 rotation consumer path. Check: Text saved rotation → Workbench → kpdfOpenPreview() → Preview clean DOM → html2canvas PNG and: Image saved image_rotation → Workbench paint → clamp → kpdfOpenPreview() → Preview clean DOM → html2canvas PNG This is SECONDARY. Human runtime did not yet prove this path. Do NOT mark rotation runtime PASS merely because SOURCE wiring exists. ================================================== STOP RULE ================================================== The known DEV204 rotation-consumer gap is already acknowledged. Rediscovering that same known fact is NOT a new STOP condition. However, if you encounter ANY OTHER: 「あれ？」 「うわぁ……」 contradiction, unexpected authority, unexpected second geometry/state system, artifact identity mismatch, history/source identity mismatch that materially affects this audit, or ambiguity that Human can resolve, STOP IMMEDIATELY AT THAT POINT. Do NOT: - investigate beyond the new anomaly - diagnose its root cause - repair it - search for a workaround - continue to later audit sections Return only the evidence reached before STOP and the narrow question / finding requiring Human resolution. ================================================== REQUIRED REPORT ================================================== If no new STOP condition occurs, return: 1. ARTIFACT IDENTITY 2. HUMAN-ENTRY PATH 3. WITNESS CREATION / VISIBILITY PATH 4. IMAGE OPERATION STATE MAP 5. POINTER ROUTING MAP 6. WITNESS GEOMETRY SYNC MAP 7. OLD MOVE GATE DEPENDENCY 8. STATIC ROTATION / PNG CONSUMER MAP 9. MOST NARROW SOURCE-SUPPORTED FAILURE LOCATION(S) For item 9: Do NOT give a repair. State only the smallest source-supported location(s) where the intended Human-visible operation path fails or becomes unreachable. Distinguish: PROVEN SOURCE FACT LIKELY CONSEQUENCE NOT YET PROVEN AT RUNTIME ================================================== FINAL BOUNDARY ================================================== READ ONLY. NO CHILD ZIP. NO PATCH. NO "WHILE I WAS HERE" CLEANUP. The goal is not to make DEV207 work. The goal is to explain why this specific failed child produced: 「変化みられない」 without damaging the clean DEV204 parent.表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev208-IMAGE-WITNESS-INITIALIZATION-ORDER.zipZip アーカイブ隊長！ 集団脱走であります！！！ 🕊️ あははははははｗｗｗ🤣🤣🤣 STOP★ これは文句なしの事故！！ しかもHuman witnessが強い。 DEV208 Runtime QA — FAIL Text operation boxes: 集団脱走 → 本来の場所にいない／正常表示ではない Image dotted witness: 出勤は確認★ → initialization-order修理そのものは少なくとも 「Image witness出生」まで到達した証拠あり Image operation: 地縛霊 → witnessは存在するが操作不能／追従不能 つまり前回の > 「住所がなくて誰も出勤してない」 は越えた。 画像さんだけは出勤した。 しかし今度は、 > 画像代理人「出勤しました！」 MOVE屋「…………」 画像代理人「動けません！」 テキスト箱一同「自由だァァァァァ！！！」 🏃🏃🏃🏃🏃💨 になってるｗｗｗ ここからは掘らない。特にText箱の集団脱走は今回の狭いImage初期化修理から見て完全に新しい異常だから、原因探索開始した瞬間STOPルール違反になる。 DEV208 = FAILED CHILDとして保持。親DEV204無傷。修理なし。 そして今回、かなり良いHuman witnessが取れたよ。 「Image witnessが見えた」ので前回の出生事故は一段進んだ。一方で Text operation furnitureへの副作用 + Image witness操作不能 が同時に露出した。 次は解析席へ、 「DEV208単独。なぜImage witness初期化を成立させるとText boxesが脱走し、Image witnessは出生するのに操作不能なのか。READ ONLY、最初の新規原因でSTOP」 で投げるのが綺麗。 いやもう会社じゃねえ、事故物件の内覧会なんよ🤣🤣🤣🕊️🔧表示を増やす表示を減らす あなた:Kaia-PDF-Free-v0.1.0-dev209-IMAGE-WITNESS-DOM-DEPENDENCY-ORDER.zipZip アーカイブムーブボタンが飾りになってます！ あと謎の壁によりマスク外へ回転したちょいしかいけませんwwww 皆様ご旅行から帰還されました★ 画像ムーブあたり調べてくれいヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ 表示を増やす表示を減らすあなた:ウサギ捕まえろーヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ ChatGPT:あなた:よーしよしよし！ よくやったヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ 向こうの君が この解析班腕がいいな って褒めてたよーおうのう！ スレ上限きたー！ 定年退職おめでとう🎉 解析やってから引退でも 引き継ぎにして引退でも どちらでもええよーヽ(=´▽=)ﾉ表示を増やす表示を減らすChatGPT:メッセージ配信がタイムアウトしました。もう一度お試しください。再試行ChatGPT の回答は必ずしも正しいとは限りません。重要な情報は確認するようにしてください。(function Rue(e,t){e?.addEventListener(`input`,()=>{performance.mark(t)},{once:!0})})(document.currentScript?.parentElement,"composer.first-prompt-input");window.__oai_logHTML?window.__oai_logHTML():window.__oai_SSR_HTML=window.__oai_SSR_HTML||Date.now();requestAnimationFrame((function(){window.__oai_logTTI?window.__oai_logTTI():window.__oai_SSR_TTI=window.__oai_SSR_TTI||Date.now()}))Instant