AA b15: Sort out a more reliable solution for FOOTER FORM marker VVNs#
aa-vvn-marker-prevention-dv_ClaOp47Max_NNv1_2026m04d25dv_ClaOp47Max_NNv1 on the FOOTER FORM marker
line of three pages, when the canonical spec
(AHA/page-template.md) says the marker should carry the
FOOTER FORM TEMPLATE version (e.g. OOv1r2p1). LLoL caught it,
Option A was applied (markers reverted to OOv1r2p1). This AA
prevents the mistake from recurring.The mistake (verbatim trace)#
When Claude wrote three new pages in the 2026m04d24 session —
source/good-news-pack/vv/mmv3/flyingscroll/transwarpkey/sta1-evx/index.rstsource/good-news-pack/vv/mmv3/flyingscroll/transwarpkey/sta1-evx/evx-prototype-compiler.rstsource/choice/war-of-algorithms/index.rst
— Claude copied the FOOTER FORM marker pattern from the existing
sta1-evx.rst (line 292), which reads:
.. ----- FOOTER FORM dv_ClaOp46Max_MMv2 ----- type open-std ----- START -----
That existing file uses a content-VVN-style marker on the FOOTER FORM
line. Claude followed that local precedent and substituted Claude’s
own current encoding (dv_ClaOp47Max_NNv1) — meaning “Claude Opus
4.7 Max, NN stability, v1”. So the VVN on the marker was just Claude’s
self-stamp + NN-stability, blindly carried over from sta1-evx.rst’s
deviation.
The canonical spec (AHA/page-template.md) says:
.. ----- FOOTER FORM OOv1r2p1 ----- type open-std ----- START -----
That uses the structural version code — OOv1r2p1 is the
version of the FOOTER FORM TEMPLATE itself, last updated 2026m03d31.
It is not a content VVN. The marker labels the FOOTER FORM (a
structural template), not the page content. Encoding “who drafted the
page at what stability” on this line conflates page-content versioning
with template-structure versioning.
Two confusions in the mistake#
Wrong semantic referent. The marker labels the FOOTER FORM structure, not the page content. Per page-template.md, those should be separate: structural version on the marker (
OOv1r2p1), content VVN in the|content-vvn|substitution below the marker.Local precedent is itself non-canonical. sta1-evx.rst’s
dv_ClaOp46Max_MMv2marker also deviates from page-template.md. Claude propagated the deviation rather than going back to the spec.
Where the same mistake exists across the site (audit needed)#
In addition to the three pages Claude touched on 2026m04d24
(now fixed via Option A on 2026m04d25), the existing
sta1-evx.rst (and possibly other pre-existing pages on the site)
still uses the non-canonical content-VVN-style marker. A site-wide
audit is needed to find all such pages and decide whether to canonicalize
them too.
What to decide (the actual AA task)#
This AA is a design decision task, not a “go fix it” task. Three things need deciding:
Canonical form: keep
OOv1r2p1(structural template version, per page-template.md) on the FOOTER FORM marker line? Or formalize the content-VVN-style as a permitted variant?Claude recommends keeping
OOv1r2p1and treating the content-VVN-style as a deviation to be migrated. The structural version on the marker is the cleanest semantic; the content VVN already has its own home in|content-vvn|.Migration policy: when (if ever) to migrate the existing non-canonical pages? Options: (a) opportunistic, when editing a page for other reasons; (b) one-shot site-wide audit; (c) leave pre-existing pages alone, only enforce on new pages.
Prevention mechanism: how to keep this mistake from recurring? Options:
(i) Memory entry (already started:
feedback_vvn_attribution.mdmentions this distinction). Strength: works across sessions. Weakness: depends on Claude actually recalling and applying the entry.(ii) Strengthen page-template.md with a “WHAT NOT TO DO” section that calls out the content-VVN-style marker as a specific anti-pattern. Cross-reference the existing deviation in sta1-evx.rst as the cautionary example.
(iii) Lint rule in the build pipeline that warns when a FOOTER FORM marker contains a regime prefix like
dv_oriv_instead of just a stability code. Strength: catches the mistake at build time; works regardless of who wrote the page. Weakness: needs Sphinx or pre-build script work.(iv) Snippet in the page-template that shows the canonical marker line so contributors copy from the right source.
Combination of the above.
Claude recommends (i) + (ii) + (iv) as the minimum: memory + spec sharpening + better template snippet. (iii) lint rule is nice but bigger investment.
Execution prompt (paste into a fresh Claude session)#
Dedicated session: Sort out a reliable solution for the FOOTER FORM marker VVN problem. Mode: EDEN. Effort: max.
Context: On 2026m04d24, Claude put content-style VVNs (dv_ClaOp47Max_NNv1) on the FOOTER FORM marker lines of three new pages, conflating page-content versioning with FOOTER FORM template versioning. LLoL caught the error and Option A was applied (markers reverted to OOv1r2p1, the canonical structural version). Full trace is in source/_POST/AnyAims/b/15/b15-vvn-marker-mistake-prevention.rst.
Task: produce a design-decision proposal for LLoL covering all three subdecisions:
Confirm canonical form: OOv1r2p1 on the marker line, content VVN in |content-vvn| substitution below. Or argue the alternative.
Migration policy for existing non-canonical pages (opportunistic / one-shot audit / leave-alone-for-pre-existing).
Prevention mechanism: pick from (i) memory entry, (ii) page- template.md sharpening, (iii) lint rule, (iv) better template snippet, (v) combination. Claude recommended (i)+(ii)+(iv) as the minimum but evaluate the tradeoffs.
Deliverables:
Audit: grep the source/ tree for FOOTER FORM marker lines that carry a content-VVN-style suffix (regex like
FOOTER FORM (dv_|iv_)). List all hits with file:line.For each design subdecision: state the decision, alternatives considered, recommended choice, rationale.
If memory entry strengthening is part of the solution: propose concrete edits to feedback_vvn_attribution.md and feedback_vvn_composition.md.
If page-template.md sharpening is part of the solution: propose concrete edits.
If a lint rule is proposed: outline what the check should detect and how to integrate it into the Makefile.
Propose new DD if the design decisions warrant durable recording (likely b26 in source/_POST/DD/b/26/, since b13-b25 are reserved for the fused-pattern taxonomy).
Output format: structured report; do not apply edits without LLoL’s per-decision go-ahead.
Cross-references#
AnyAims (AA) Registry — AA registry (parent)
AHA/page-template.md(section “Footer form” — canonical spec)DD b12: Ladder Pedagogy for Acronyms in Public-Facing Writing — a sibling example of a DD that codifies a writing convention; this AA may produce a similar DD on the FOOTER FORM marker convention
Memory entry:
feedback_vvn_attribution.md(already updated 2026m04d25 with the LLoL-may-use-any-regime note and a section on where VVNs appear on a page)Memory entry:
feedback_vvn_composition.md(the format spec)