Write down what the corpus actually says, and correct three stale claims

The findings doc's last entry was 2026-10-19 and ended by naming what was missing: "a mechanism
that can tell a real short ad from a short coincidence". Words are that mechanism, it was built,
and thirty-two server commits later the doc never recorded what it measured. A future session
would have re-attempted the ad/furniture classifier that was already measured and deleted.

The new entry is derived from the live state file rather than quoted, which is how it caught that
publish.go's own figure describes a subset. "92% to 104% across eighteen episodes" is the
publisher-transcript number. Across the 24 episodes now publishing an ad span, recovery runs 20%
to 146%. Split by where the master came from, the spread stops being a spread: a publisher's
transcript gives 94-104%, a refetch gives a median of 33%. Nothing in Publishable looks at which
it has, and refetch masters are now fifteen of those twenty-four -- the majority of a tier the
design had decided not to act on.

It also caught me getting a conclusion wrong. Two Reply All episodes publish ad spans at 146% and
138% of their length gap, which reads as the detector over-claiming by half a minute of
programme. Looking at the show instead of the episode: Reply All's gaps run from -0.48 to +1.02
minutes across eight episodes. They straddle zero, so the feed's declared durations are not a
baseline for that show and the thing being exceeded is noise. The structural finding is the useful
one -- HasInsertedAdvertising asks only whether this episode's gap clears one ad unit, and has no
notion of whether the show's gaps are consistent enough to mean anything. Both versions are in the
entry, because the wrong one is the one a reader would reach for next time.

Nothing here changes behaviour. Whether a refetch should publish an ad at all is Peter's call and
is written up as such.

CLAUDE.md, separately:

- It still said the episode description shows about two lines. That was changed to ten yesterday,
  for a reason that is recorded: the limit existed to stop long notes pushing the transport
  off-screen, and the merge had already put the notes below the transport. Left as it was, the
  doc was an instruction to reintroduce the bug.
- "207 unit tests" has been wrong for most of the project's life; the suite is past nine hundred.
  Replaced with a note to ask the wrappers, since any number written here goes stale the same way.
- The TDD rule banned backfilling tests onto existing code without qualification, which also
  forbids the one case where it is right -- pinning behaviour before moving it, so a refactor is
  provably behaviour-preserving. Narrowed to say that, and to say the order matters. The sixteen
  formatter tests in 2cc252a were written that way.
- Added the rule those formatter files were moved to satisfy: anything the app says out loud lives
  in a named file of its own and is tested, never inside the composable that renders it. It was
  already followed by eight files and stated only in WaitingForServerText's own comment.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_018AwnALZL6bD4VBtATDVv3B

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions