C04.2 — Finite selector actions and the price of their shape
Library article. Exposition built on the Registrar. The article kind (FOUNDATION / CONDITIONAL / HISTORICAL / OPEN) says what the article does; it is not a scientific tier and it never upgrades a claim's printed label. Every number below is produced by the code on this page, not recalled.
Prior art: 1 standard · 6 programme · 1 unresolved — on the Prior art page. Nothing on these pages is claimed as new.
Sections
One page per section (R71). A section is a typed object (R69): its record uses carry the Registrar's own review vocabulary and every one is UNREVIEWED until a lane reads it; its attestation is inherited from this article unless it has earned its own.
Derived, not written: every record cited above was followed to its rests_on_premise edges. This article does not defend these premises and does not adopt them; it inherits them by citing records that rest on them.
Full digests, never prefixes. Run the script yourself: python3 C04.2_CHECKS.py
What verification these articles have had, and what they have not. Every article here is HOUSE-VERIFIED: re-executed by the house, with complete code, its actual output, input hashes, a declared-sha check, and a §8 prior-art pass labelling each substantive result STANDARD (cited) / PROGRAMME / UNRESOLVED. Several were independently re-derived by a second house code path. They have been read adversarially ONCE, by one lane that did not write them. These articles were drafted by the ChatGPT lane and verified by the house; the Grok lane read all eleven against the contract in dispatch D1263 (intake A1592, S313) and found a stale Registrar basis on 9 of the 11 — the finding that caused textbook_basis_gate.py to be written, which is why this table carries a basis column at all. ★ That is ONE cold read by ONE lane. It is NOT peer review, it is NOT sustained cross-lane review, and no further lane has read the articles since. The Registrar claims they cite are IN REVIEW: 0 of 357 are house-adjudicated. No word on this surface should be read as ‘reviewed’ in any stronger sense than this paragraph states. (PI ruling S312, ACTION A: the house accepts its own verification as the standard here and states it plainly, rather than owing a verifier round indefinitely. Corrected S316 under H58: the previous wording said no second lane had read them, which denied the D1263 read and the gate it produced.)
What this article rests on
Ruling R38: only citations typed use_as_support import a cited record's premise closure. Citing a record in order to criticise or compare it imports nothing.
27 citation(s) carry a negation the house has not yet read; they do NOT import until a human does.
An empty closure means UNKNOWN, not INDEPENDENT. It means the records this article supports itself on declare no premises — not that the article rests on none. No record in this corpus has had its dependency enumeration reviewed.