Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- provenance:design:archives [2026/08/13 22:45] – New provenance page for design:archives: populations and denominators, the archive-name fold with full residue, quotes spot-checked, external sources verified and rejected, four review passes with findings and dispositions, report script output. Authored karel.kubicek.claude
+++ provenance:design:archives [2026/08/13 22:45] (current) – Add discussion-block and publication-order rows to the run log, and the back-link footer, matching the other provenance pages. Authored by Claude karel.kubicek.claude
@@ Line 562: / Line 562: @@
 | Code written | ''scripts/arch_fold.mjs'' (new), ''scripts/report_archives.mjs'' (new), ''scripts/quote_check.mjs'' (''--temporal'' mode added) |
 | Pages saved | [[design:archives]] (extended), [[provenance:design:archives]] (new), [[literature:bibliography]] (3 entries added, 1 corrected in place) |
+| Discussion block | None, following the convention already set by ''provenance:design:sampling'' and ''provenance:design:crawling_location'' — comments belong on the content page. The citekeys here therefore render as markers with no reference list, which is the convention rather than an omission. |
+| Publication order | ''literature:bibliography'' (3 added, 1 corrected) → [[design:archives]] → this page, all 2026-08-13, after all four review passes had returned and been applied. |
 **Mistakes made and caught in review**, recorded because the clean version of this page would be worth less:
@@ Line 574: / Line 577: @@
 Every one of these was found by a reviewer, none by the author. The pattern worth carrying forward: the two most serious defects (D1, C1) were **not** the kind a checklist finds — one was a category error inside code everyone had been handed, the other was a claim that something does not exist. Both needed a reader who was not told what to look for.
+[[design:archives|← back to the content page]] · [[literature:corpus|corpus-level provenance]]