Phase 2I-2a: PoR Field Testing — Identity, Technical, Sources#

Note

Path update needed if rerun (2026-03-25, Phase 2I-3). This prompt was executed before the compiler directory was created. If this script is ever rerun, update the AHA doc path below.

Note

200K-token execution prompt. Copy-paste everything below the horizontal rule into a new Claude Code session.

Prerequisite: Phase 2I-1 (label migration) must have completed.

Split note: The original 2I-2 was split into 2I-2a (this session: fields 1–18) and 2I-2b (fields 19–45) to fit the 200K-token context window. Together they produce the complete testing report.

Token budget: ~100K. Reads PoR source files in full (which is necessary for field-by-field assessment) but defers the large stress-test and critique files to 2I-2b.

/clear /compact /effort max

You are executing Phase 2I-2a of the JUB OOv2 matheology project: PoR field testing, Part A. The AHA design document specifies 45 fields per axiom. This session tests fields 1–18 (Identity & Display, Technical Explanation, Source-Text Support) against the existing PoR source files.

This session does NO migration or code changes. It reads and analyses.

STEP 0 — READ ALL REQUIRED FILES (DO THIS FIRST)#

ax1_A1. AHA DESIGN DOC (field definitions, Section 11) — READ IN FULL: source/matheology/vv/jub/oov2/llog/aha-best-names-for-matheology-links.rst (New location: source/matheology/compiler/ww/5d-link-naming-matheology-aha.rst)

ax2_A2. PET AXIOMS (the PoR source for ax1_A1–ax14_A14) — READ IN FULL: source/matheology/pet/axioms.rst

ax3_A3. JUB AXIOMS (the PoR source for ax15_A15–ax25_A25) — READ IN FULL: source/matheology/jub/axioms.rst

ax4_A4. JUB THEOREMS (the PoR source for th5_T5–th11_T11) — READ IN FULL: source/matheology/jub/theorems.rst

ax5_A5. JUB QUEST (for source-text citations) — SELECTIVE READ: source/matheology/jub/quest.rst For this session, you need quest.rst only to check source-text citations (fields 12–18). Use grep to find Torah, Bible, Gospel, Quran, Sanskrit, and secular references within the quest structure. Read 10-line context around each match. Do NOT read the entire file (~48K tokens).

STEP 1 — BUILD COVERAGE MATRIX: FIELDS 1–18#

For EACH axiom (ax1_A1–ax25_A25) and EACH theorem (th5_T5–th11_T11), assess coverage for fields 1–18:

Group 1: Identity & Display (fields 1–6)

  1. id — BriefName: canonical label

  2. title — Title: full display title

  3. name — ExplicitName: CamelCase identifier

  4. sum — SummarizingName: plain-English statement

  5. intro — ExplanationIntroOverview: accessible explanation

  6. latex — FormalMathLatex: LaTeX notation

Group 2: Technical Explanation (fields 7–11)

  1. tctx — TechExplanationContext: detailed reasoning context

  2. tcnt — TechExplanationContentAll: comprehensive technical

  3. logic — LogicsUsed: which logics apply

  4. twhy — TechReasoningAll: reasoning chain

  5. tinf — TechInformal: informal intuition and analogies

Group 3: Source-Text Support (fields 12–18)

  1. stor — SupportTorah: Torah references

  2. sheb — SupportHebrewBible: Prophets/Writings references

  3. sgos — SupportGospels: Gospel references

  4. sapo — SupportApostolic: Apostolic/NT references

  5. squr — SupportQuran: Quran references

  6. ssan — SupportSanskrit: Hindu primary text references

  7. vsec — SupportSecular: philosophical/empirical support

For each element × field, assign a coverage score:

  • F (Full) — content exists and can be extracted as-is

  • P (Partial) — some content exists but needs expansion

  • S (Stub) — heading can be generated but content is empty

  • N (N/A) — field does not apply to this element

Present as a grid: rows = elements (ax1_A1–ax25_A25, th5_T5–th11_T11), columns = fields 1–18. Use single-character codes.

STEP 2 — PARTIAL GAP ANALYSIS (FIELDS 1–18)#

From the matrix above, identify:

  1. Identity completeness: Do all elements have id, title, and sum? These should be 100% Full if the PoR is properly structured.

  2. Technical coverage pattern: Which elements have strong technical explanations vs. stubs? Is there a systematic gap (e.g., JUB axioms less technically developed than PET)?

  3. Source-text gaps by tradition: For fields 12–18:

    • Which traditions have the best coverage?

    • Which are systematically empty?

    • For each tradition rated “Partial”, what exactly is present vs. missing? (e.g., “Torah: mentioned in prose but no chapter:verse citation”)

    • Priority ranking: which traditions to fill first for maximum scholarly credibility?

STEP 3 — EXTRACTION DIFFICULTY (FIELDS 1–18)#

For each of the 18 fields, rate extraction difficulty:

  • Auto — mechanically extractable from existing RST structure

  • Parse — requires parsing existing prose

  • Synthesize — requires combining multiple sources

  • Generate — requires new content not in the corpus

Present as a table: 18 rows, columns = difficulty + source location + notes.

STEP 4 — WRITE PARTIAL REPORT#

Create: source/matheology/vv/jub/oov2/llog/2I-por-field-testing-part-a.rst

Contents:

  1. Title: “Phase 2I-2a: PoR Field Testing — Identity, Technical, Sources (Fields 1–18)”

  2. Generated-by line with date and model

  3. Coverage matrix for fields 1–18

  4. Gap analysis for fields 1–18

  5. Extraction difficulty for fields 1–18

  6. Note that fields 19–45 will be covered in Part B

CRITICAL RULES#

  1. llog files are APPEND-ONLY.

  2. NEVER delete content files.

  3. This session READS and ANALYSES only. The only file you CREATE is the partial testing report.

  4. For every field rated “Full”, QUOTE the specific passage from the PoR file that justifies the rating. This makes the assessment auditable.

  5. NEVER abbreviate prompts in llogs.

  6. LANGUAGE RULES: a. NEVER use bare “Jubilee” as standalone noun. b. NEVER use “the” for unproven superlatives.

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.

TELES repair — 2026m04d04

Repaired unexpected indentation error by adjusting bullet list alignment within a numbered list item. No formal content was modified.