Follow-through from G-174: with the walk conserving the tail, 'i a? web
green' honestly reports the web/sample ambiguity - but a?'s implementation
is literal-first else-branch dispatch, so the loose sample form can never
receive a sibling form's literal discriminator word. The declaration
over-admits, and per-type exclusion lists would be cross-referential drift.
G-179 (proposed): definition-level opt-in (-formselection literalshadow) -
among clean matches, a form whose leading discriminator run (literal/
literalprefix alternates or restricted choice sets, form_literal_affinity's
notion) agreed with the supplied words shadows forms accepting the same word
positions only via loose types. Loose-vs-loose ambiguity stays honest,
noformmatch ranking untouched, undeclared definitions byte-identical,
shadowed forms stay introspectable in formstatus; punk::ansi::a? adoption
plus the three cmdhelp.test G-174 presentation-pin flips are in the
acceptance. Related: G-041 (opt-in carve-out from its no-preference
default), G-167 (sibling candidacy filter at the same seam), G-152/G-164,
G-150, G-083, G-174, G-175, G-177, G-072.
Collateral: the G-174 archived follow-on ("tighten a?'s loose sample form"
=> declined) re-dispositioned to => goal G-179 - this goal enacts its intent
by declaration-level means rather than the type-exclusion approach the
decline was about.
Assisted-by: harness=claude; primary-model=claude-fable-5; api-location=anthropic.com
Julian Noble