back to table · edit · history · where entries came from · files · download
1772 bytes, as of the version from 2026-10-30 13:35 (current). Recorded here, not run.
# Builder response to the T626 audit
The final audit retains two structural questions about the symbolic parameters.
The checker deliberately reads parameter structure without prose and does not
encode semantic exemptions (`audit_table.py`, `_one_named_quantity`, and its
`test_it_asks_about_a_small_named_index_too_and_that_is_the_cost` test).
- **lattice:** `triangular` and `honeycomb` index the network argument of one
effective-resistance function. This is the same kind of object index as a
graph, lattice or root-system parameter, not a switch between resistance,
conductance, Green functions or another quantity. The family issue explicitly
requires one table containing the two network arguments. Both names occur
in the title, and a single mathematical resistance symbol heads every row.
- **sublattice:** `A` and `B` select the destination vertex within a honeycomb
cell. They are parts of the endpoint argument, not different observables.
The triangular graph has the sole label `A`. The adjacency and basis offset
fix the meaning of every endpoint exactly.
The definition now states the function of network and destination arguments
concisely; the periodic-limit convention has moved to Comments. This resolves
the audit's separate definition-length finding. The two remaining structural
questions are answered here and in `argument-selection.md`; they require the
independent critique's mathematical judgment. No audit code was changed or
bypassed, and `final-audit.json` honestly retains `clean: false`.
No split, added quantity, range change, relabeling or numeric edit was made.
All 84 stored values have passed independent readback checks. The independent
critique/argument-review stage remains pending, and the draft is not offered.