Integration Finding: D1/D2 Testing Matrix (BREACH 1.7)#
Note
Data collection file. Agents performing content integration should append rows to the matrix below whenever they encounter a D2 type ID used with a D1 model code. This file is append-only (per CLAUDE.md).
Question being answered: Which D2 type IDs are actually used by which D1 models? Are there combinations that are grammar-legal but semantically empty? Are there combinations that would be useful but nobody has written yet?
How to report: For each combination encountered during integration, append a row with: model, type ID, status (Y = has content, E = empty stub, W = would be useful but missing), source file, and a brief note.
Findings#
D1 |
D2 |
Status |
Source file |
Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|
pet |
ax |
Y |
|
14 axioms (ax1_A1–ax14_A14) with full content |
jub |
ax |
Y |
|
11 axioms (ax15_A15–ax25_A25) with full content |
pet |
con |
W |
(none) |
No Pet disputatio exists yet; objections filed under Jub but several apply to Pet axioms (e.g., con11 targets ax1_A1 which is a Pet axiom) |
jub |
aa |
W |
(none) |
No AnyAims landing page for Jub; would be useful for tracking Jub-specific next steps |
Summary (to be written after integration completes)#
(Agents: after all content has been sorted, write a summary paragraph here assessing: how many cells are Y, E, W? Are there D2 types used by only one model? Is the restriction inherent or accidental?)
(Specifically address the Pet disputatio question: did cross-model objections naturally emerge during sorting — e.g., objections filed under Jub that actually target Pet axioms, or content where authors naturally wrote objections to Pet? The instinct “add generic disputatio to all models” is architecturally clean but may be premature. If nobody naturally objects to Pet axioms directly, that is evidence that con/pro may be structurally specific to Jub’s quest format. Report what you observed, not what you think the architecture should be.)
TELES migration report (2026m04d04)
Mechanical identifier migration applied to this file. All axiom/theorem text references were migrated from short form (e.g., A15) to compound form (e.g., ax15_A15) as part of the matheology compound naming operation. Both forms refer to the same formal object. The old form survives as the suffix to ensure consistency with the oldest records; the new form adds a temporary-status prefix. Forward-facing pages use brief form (ax15) only. See TELES Axiom/Theorem Compound Naming — Execution Prompt for the complete mapping table and DD b12 — Legacy Naming for PET/JUB Axioms and Theorems for the permanent reference.