An organisation's engineering knowledge is written down inside individual repositories, where it stays. These are working notes on the stage that decides when several teams have independently arrived at the same practice — a counting argument, not a judgement — and on what may then be handed to a project that did not exist when any of it was written. They are for someone deciding what an organisation's shared memory may tell a new repository on its first day, not someone deciding whether to buy one.
A weighting that decides which words carry a sentence's meaning is a claim about a collection, not about the sentence. Twenty planted conventions, the one ratio that predicts whether they survive, and the merge that would have published sentences nobody wrote.
Paper 002Promoting a practice to something an organisation believes should be a counting argument over independent scopes. What that forces on the design, and the one byte of punctuation that stopped two repositories agreeing.
Paper 003Evidence that travels with the claim, a default that says in its own words it may be overridden, and a boundary that is structural rather than a filter. Where the count stops being interpretable, and what would settle it.
A measure of which words in a sentence carry its meaning is a statement about a collection, and choosing the wrong collection makes it run backwards. Measured on twenty conventions planted three times each in three repositories, recovery tracks one quantity — the weight of the word naming which convention this is, over a word they all share — and every configuration at or above 1.754 recovered all twenty, while every at or below 1.254 recovered none, returning merged sentences citing up to 41 repositories that never wrote them. Judging each group against itself rather than against the whole pool recovers all twenty at every size measured, from 60 to 10,060 records. The failure is silent: the grouping collapses while the weighting is still the right way up. These notes do not settle whether such a count survives an organisational boundary, where independence stops being checkable.
The method and measurements here were developed inside SkilledMind, a Digital One property, and the defects in Papers 001 and 002 were found by re-measuring its own convergence stage against a corpus built for the purpose. That repository is not public, so the engine's behaviour is its builders' account rather than something a reader can check today. The planted corpus is different: its generator is printed in Paper 001 and the experiment can be re-run by anyone. Figures taken from a live store are from a private one and are not reproducible. Deliberately absent: prices, plans and tiers, and deployment internals.
These notes are contributed under CC BY 4.0: quote, reproduce and build on them with attribution, a link to the licence, and adaptations marked as such. The Foundation is an entity in formation; no public-benefit (ANBI) status is claimed at this time.