colregs 0.2.4 → 0.3.1

package/docs/requirements.md

@@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ Neither consumer lives in this repo.
   exists. That bar is about suppression, not licensing: it is independent of
   REQ-PROV-2 and ADR 0010, and it binds whether a jurisdiction's text ships or
   is withheld. A delta that only *adds* entries is exempt: it suppresses nothing,
-  so the Q-11 hazard cannot arise from it (ADR 0008, `30a-buoy`/`30b-buoy`).
+  so the Q-11 hazard cannot arise from it (ADR 0008, `rule:30a:mooring_buoy`/`rule:30b:mooring_buoy`).
   A delta that suppresses or replaces an `intl` entry still waits.
 - **REQ-SCOPE-4** — Adding a jurisdiction MUST be additive. It MUST NOT require
   a schema change or edits to existing `intl` entries.
@@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ Four layers, each independently addressable.
   identifiers do not.
 - **REQ-MODEL-4** — **Applicability entries**: `when` (predicate over facts) →
   lights or refs → modality → citation → jurisdiction. Every entry MUST have a
-  stable id derived from its paragraph path (`25b`, `25d1`).
+  stable id, a paragraph key in the `rule:` namespace (`rule:25d_i`; ADR 0015).
 - **REQ-MODEL-5** — Gates MUST be expressed as predicates over facts
   (`fact:length_m < 7`), never as pre-enumerated tuples or configuration counts. Any
   count of "configurations" is an output of evaluation, never an input to the
@@ -187,8 +187,8 @@ Four layers, each independently addressable.
   ADR 0005 §4.
 - **REQ-MODEL-12** — `rel:conditional_includes` currently carries three
   distinct shapes under one relation name: a bare `one_of` alternative set
-  (`25d2`), a gated alternative set (`when` + `one_of`, `27f`), and a gated
-  import with its own citation (`when` + `rel:includes` + `cite`, `29a`). Which
+  (`rule:25d_ii`), a gated alternative set (`when` + `one_of`, `rule:27f`), and a gated
+  import with its own citation (`when` + `rel:includes` + `cite`, `rule:29a`). Which
   behaviour applies is inferred from which keys are present. This is a
   **soft** requirement — the data is correct today and the tests cover it,
   so nothing is broken. It is recorded because a third jurisdiction adding
@@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ Four layers, each independently addressable.
     denoted, MUST be marked deprecated in data with the version that
     deprecated it, and MUST NOT be removed in the same major version.
   - **Mutating** one is forbidden. This covers the obvious case (renaming
-    `25b`) and the dangerous quiet one: an identifier keeping its spelling
+    `rule:25b`) and the dangerous quiet one: an identifier keeping its spelling
     while changing what it denotes — a paragraph path repointed at
     different text, a fact value narrowed, a light id reassigned. A
     consumer cannot detect this, and every stored citation becomes silently
@@ -225,29 +225,28 @@ Four layers, each independently addressable.
   removing an identifier is a major version (REQ-PKG-4); repointing one is
   not a version event at all, because it is not permitted.
 
-  **Immutability baseline: `0.1.1`.** The prohibitions above bind every
-  identifier present in the first version released *after* `colregs@0.1.1`,
-  and every identifier introduced from then on. Identifiers as they stood
-  in `0.1.1` and earlier are outside the baseline. The reason, recorded so
-  it is not mistaken for convenience later: `0.1.1` was published
-  2026-08-29, the day the package was seeded, before the identifier review
-  this requirement itself calls for had been done and before any consumer
-  existed. Read without a baseline, the requirement froze the vocabulary at
-  the moment of its first accidental publication and forbade the one review
-  it was written to make possible — including the vocabulary type-prefixing
-  that resolved a live namespace collision (`docs/identifiers.md`). That is
-  a defect in the requirement, not a licence to skip the review.
-
-  The baseline is **set exactly once**. It MUST NOT be moved, raised,
-  re-stated in a later version, or joined by a second baseline clause. This
-  clause is the whole of the exception; there is no mechanism for granting
-  another. Without that, "move the baseline" is a silent escape hatch from
+  **Immutability baseline: `1.0.0`.** The prohibitions above bind every
+  identifier present in `colregs@1.0.0` and every identifier introduced
+  from then on. Identifiers as they stood before `1.0.0` are outside the
+  baseline: while the package is pre-1.0 the schema is being designed, and
+  an identifier may be renamed or discarded without a deprecation record.
+  The baseline was first set at `0.1.1` on 2026-08-30, the day after the
+  package was seeded, so that the identifier review this requirement calls
+  for could happen at all. It was moved to `1.0.0` by Solace's ruling on
+  #121 (ADR 0015, 2026-09-16), which reshaped every entry id into a
+  paragraph key in the `rule:` namespace.
+
+  From `1.0.0` the baseline is **fixed**. It MUST NOT be moved, raised,
+  re-stated in a later version, or joined by a second baseline clause.
+  Without that, "move the baseline" is a silent escape hatch from
   REQ-MODEL-10 and the exception becomes the pattern — a specification that
   can suspend its own prohibition by editing one number is advisory, not
-  normative. One recorded exception is a correction; a second is a policy.
+  normative.
 
   `test/data.test.mjs` pins the baseline literal and asserts it is stated
-  exactly once. A build has no access to git history, so it cannot see the
+  exactly once. There is no identifier diff against the last release: ADR 0006
+  proposed one, ADR 0015 removed it pre-1.0, and it returns with the baseline
+  tag if at all. A build has no access to git history, so it cannot see the
   number being *edited* in place; a test that reconstructed history to
   check would cost more than it is worth and would still pass on a rewritten
   history. What it can refuse is a **second** baseline clause, which is the
@@ -274,14 +273,18 @@ Four layers, each independently addressable.
     names, not a modelling convenience of this package.
   - **`nuc`, `cbd`, `ram`, `ram_underwater`** — kept unspelled as terms of
     art; see `docs/identifiers.md` for the reasoning and the trap in `ram`.
+
+  ADR 0015 (Solace's ruling on #121, 2026-09-16) reopened the first two
+  bullets: an entry id is a paragraph key in the `rule:` namespace now, and
+  the suffix taxonomy went with it. They stand as the audit's record.
 - **REQ-MODEL-11** — Deprecated identifiers MUST be recorded as data — a
   registry naming each retired identifier, what it denoted, the version that
   deprecated it, and its replacement where one exists. Prose in a changelog
   MUST NOT stand in for it: a consumer pinned to an old version needs to
-  resolve a stale identifier mechanically. The registry is
-  `data/deprecated-identifiers.json`, schema-validated
-  (`schema/deprecated-identifiers.schema.json`, ADR 0006); it ships empty
-  until the first identifier is retired.
+  resolve a stale identifier mechanically. **The registry is absent until
+  `1.0.0`.** ADR 0015 deleted it, and the diff that read it: nothing before
+  the baseline is immutable, so nothing before it can be retired, and an
+  empty file with a dormant test is a mechanism that cannot fire.
 
 ### 4.1 Rule categories and the situation record
 
@@ -438,8 +441,7 @@ official languages, and many states gazette their own legally binding
 translation. (Recalled, not yet verified against the primary sources — Q-6.)
 See ADR 0003.
 
-- **REQ-LANG-1** **(unimplemented — no language dimension exists in the
-  data)** — Language MUST be a dimension orthogonal to jurisdiction,
+- **REQ-LANG-1** — Language MUST be a dimension orthogonal to jurisdiction,
   identified by BCP 47 tags. Which body of rules applies and which text of
   them is displayed are independent questions; neither MUST ever be inferred
   from the other, and no property beyond the language of the text — not
@@ -452,8 +454,7 @@ See ADR 0003.
   and renaming an identifier is a breaking change (REQ-PKG-4). Immutability
   itself is REQ-MODEL-10; this requirement adds only that identifiers are
   never localized.
-- **REQ-LANG-3** **(unimplemented — rule text is one untagged ruleset, not a
-  corpus per jurisdiction × language × source)** — Rule text MUST be storable
+- **REQ-LANG-3** — Rule text MUST be storable
   as a **corpus** per (jurisdiction × language × source), keyed by paragraph
   path, holding at most one text per path, with corpus-level provenance and
   one declared status tier:
@@ -468,8 +469,7 @@ See ADR 0003.
   rule applies per corpus, against that corpus's own source.
 - **REQ-LANG-4** — Adding a language MUST be additive: no schema change, no
   edits to existing corpora or catalogs (the language mirror of REQ-SCOPE-4).
-- **REQ-LANG-5** **(unimplemented — no coverage declaration, and the CI checks
-  are unwritten)** — Corpora MAY be partial. Coverage MUST be declared in
+- **REQ-LANG-5** — Corpora MAY be partial. Coverage MUST be declared in
   machine-readable form, and CI MUST fail on a corpus key that does not
   resolve to a known paragraph path, and on a corpus filename that disagrees
   with the file's internal metadata. Silence MUST NOT imply coverage (the
@@ -495,15 +495,13 @@ See ADR 0003.
 - **REQ-LANG-8** — A `community`-tier corpus MUST record who produced and
   who reviewed it. Machine translation without named human review MUST NOT
   be accepted.
-- **REQ-LANG-9** **(unimplemented — the shipped text declares no normalization
-  form)** — Verbatim (REQ-MODEL-1) is defined at the Unicode level: each
+- **REQ-LANG-9** — Verbatim (REQ-MODEL-1) is defined at the Unicode level: each
   corpus MUST declare the normalization form applied to its text (NFC unless
   declared otherwise) and MUST NOT insert or strip bidi control characters,
   localize numerals, punctuation, units or quotation marks, or otherwise "fix"
   the source text. Rendering direction is a consumer concern and MUST stay out
   of the data.
-- **REQ-LANG-10** **(unimplemented — neither the skeleton nor the ruleset
-  declares an amendment state)** — The structural skeleton MUST declare, as
+- **REQ-LANG-10** — The structural skeleton MUST declare, as
   data, the amendment state it consolidates (e.g. "COLREGS 72 as amended
   through …"). Every corpus MUST declare the amendment state its source
   reflects. The two MAY differ — a corpus transcribed from an older
@@ -527,8 +525,7 @@ See ADR 0003.
 - **REQ-PROV-5** — Images MUST be addressable as data: an image record per file,
   naming what it illustrates by entry id or paragraph path. Unexplained filename
   prefixes are a provenance defect.
-- **REQ-PROV-6** **(unimplemented — source identity is a prose string and
-  rights are one flat field)** — Source identity MUST be structured data —
+- **REQ-PROV-6** — Source identity MUST be structured data —
   publisher, title, edition, publication and effective dates, URL, retrieval
   date — not a prose string. Rights MUST be recorded separately for the source
   text, for the basis on which this package redistributes it, and for the
@@ -699,20 +696,21 @@ Each gate names the declined design, the closing event, and the trigger.
   second-jurisdiction bundle — justified by Q-11 and GATE-2, no longer by
   a cross-jurisdiction trigger route.
 
-- **GATE-2 — instrument → edition → corpus as first-class layers**
-  (ADR 0003, declined; the adopted 80% is REQ-LANG-10).
-  *Closing event*: the second corpus of any one jurisdiction — which,
-  read against ADR 0003's sequencing, means **the first non-English
-  corpus**, not a distant milestone. A French or Finnish text of `intl`
-  is a second corpus of `intl`. With one corpus, re-homing it under an
-  edition parent is a single file move; the cost scales with
+- ~~**GATE-2 — instrument → edition → corpus as first-class layers**~~
+  (ADR 0003, declined; the adopted 80% is REQ-LANG-10). **Re-taken and
+  adopted, ADR 0013** — ahead of its due date (translation #1): the
+  edition registry lands directly, rather than waiting for the trigger
+  below to fire.
+  *Closing event, as declined*: the second corpus of any one jurisdiction
+  — which, read against ADR 0003's sequencing, means **the first
+  non-English corpus**, not a distant milestone. A French or Finnish text
+  of `intl` is a second corpus of `intl`. With one corpus, re-homing it
+  under an edition parent is a single file move; the cost scales with
   corpora × languages immediately thereafter.
-  *Trigger*: a jurisdiction publishing two editions in force
+  *Trigger, as declined*: a jurisdiction publishing two editions in force
   concurrently — an old and a new text running in parallel through a
   transition period. REQ-LANG-10's declared amendment state makes such a
-  pair machine-visible, which is what gives this trigger a foothold.
-  *Re-take required before translation #1 lands* — the edition-layer
-  decision is due at the first added translation, not at 1.0.
+  pair machine-visible, which is what gave this trigger its foothold.
 
 - **GATE-3 — legal-status × translation-status as two enums**
   (ADR 0003, half-adopted: one tier for legal authority in REQ-LANG-3,
@@ -806,7 +804,7 @@ Tracked here until resolved; each becomes an ADR.
 - **Q-4** — Two upstream SignalK spec asks are outstanding and independent of
   this package: a making-way indicator, and `design.maxSpeed`.
 - **Q-5** — REQ-VERIFY-5 asks for boundary fixtures on every numeric gate.
-  Three gates (`23a2`, `26b-mast`, `30c`'s `fact:length_m` thresholds) live only in
+  Three gates (`rule:23a_ii`, `rule:26b_ii`, `rule:30c`'s `fact:length_m` thresholds) live only in
   `modality_by`, not in the entry's `when` — they flip `shall` to `may`, not
   which entries apply. The fixture format only asserts applying entry ids, not
   expected modality, so there is no way to fixture these three without
@@ -819,8 +817,8 @@ Tracked here until resolved; each becomes an ADR.
   id asserts nothing, so `applicability-fixtures.json` stays byte-identical
   and needs no migration; REQ-CAT-7 states the rule and
   `fixtures/situation-fixtures.json` carries the worked example. What is left
-  is not a decision but the work: writing the boundary fixtures for `23a2`,
-  `26b-mast` and `30c` in the new form. Pencil, so a session that finds a
+  is not a decision but the work: writing the boundary fixtures for `rule:23a_ii`,
+  `rule:26b_ii` and `rule:30c` in the new form. Pencil, so a session that finds a
   better shape may change it, logging the change; settled for good by those
   three fixtures actually landing.
 - **Q-6** — The treaty-language facts behind §5 (en/fr authentic, es/ru
@@ -842,6 +840,14 @@ Tracked here until resolved; each becomes an ADR.
   not only as a whole: clearing one candidate source unblocks that corpus
   alone, which is the cheap path when a demo needs a specific language
   early.
+  **BOE (`es`) and Finlex (`fi`) verified clean, 2026-09-09 and 2026-09-12**
+  (ADR 0001 amendments) — both permit the reuse REQ-PROV-2 needs. The UNTS
+  deposit (`en`/`fr`) is confirmed **blocked**, not merely unverified: no
+  UNTS-specific rights statement exists, and the reachable terms are the
+  same personal/non-commercial, no-derivative-works terms that block CEVNI.
+  `es` is the cheapest language to ship the first non-`intl` corpus; UNTS
+  needs written UN permission or a national republication before `en`/`fr`
+  can use the deposit route.
 - **Q-8** — Does the paragraph path survive the first national amalgamation?
   GATE-1's accepted risk rests on paragraph paths being immutable
   (REQ-MODEL-10) — adding and deprecating are fine, but a path that keeps its
@@ -870,7 +876,7 @@ Tracked here until resolved; each becomes an ADR.
   `24(d)`, `24(f)`, `24(g)`, `24(i)`, `25(d)(i)`, `25(d)(ii)`, `25(e)`,
   `26(d)`, `30(e)`), plus one structural path-mismatch (`23(d)(i)` — the
   Inland equivalent sits at bare `23(d)`, not `23(d)(i)`), one whole-rule
-  clean absence (`28`, "[Reserved]" in Inland), and two clean intl-only
+  clean absence (`rule:28`, "[Reserved]" in Inland), and two clean intl-only
   absences. Secondary claim (amendment history): also refuted — the WIG
   amendment (A.910(22), 2001) explicitly renumbers, displacing the
   pre-existing `23(c)` (small-vessel alternative lights) to `23(d)`; a 1981
@@ -959,6 +965,11 @@ listed here, one line each, because the ADR is what makes them live. Most are
   invariant that does not fit. *(engine)*
 - **Q-17** — What separation distance *d* defines the "safe" level? Fixed to
   one value to start; settled by the sensitivity matrix of Q-22. *(engine)*
+  One data point: `docs/maritime-sources.md`'s MAIB *Polesie*/*Verity* report
+  cites UK case law putting close-quarters at a ~12-minute TCPA and adapts a
+  suggested-TCPA table (its Figure 16) from *A Guide to the Collision
+  Avoidance Rules* — not a d in metres, but a real-world anchor for the
+  sensitivity matrix.
 - **Q-18** — What is the dynamics model, and what is the list of dynamics
   classes (tanker, ferry, yacht, …)? Settled by the first two-vessel
   computation; the class list is a data question once it stabilises.
@@ -980,8 +991,10 @@ listed here, one line each, because the ADR is what makes them live. Most are
   it have to be computed at runtime? Settled by the first two-vessel
   computation's cost. *(engine)*
 - **Q-23** — Is Rule 2(b) a duty where departure is necessary, and does the
-  departing vessel bear the burden? Settled by reading the cases (*The Bywell
-  Castle*, *Boy Andrew v St Rognvald*, both unverified), not by advocacy.
+  departing vessel bear the burden? Partly settled — yes and yes — by
+  `docs/maritime-sources.md`'s *Ever Smart* and *Crowley* entries; the
+  taxonomy of qualifying circumstances, and *The Bywell Castle* and *Boy
+  Andrew v St Rognvald*, are still unread. *colregs-engine* issue #83.
 - **Q-24** — Are the four worked illustrations (R0, R1, R2,
   `inconclusive-in-model`) actually in the regions they are said to be in?
   They fix meanings, not numbers; settled by computing them. *(engine)*
@@ -1117,8 +1130,8 @@ named that gap before the class existed.
   protected-vessel property is a per-vessel fact, consumer-supplied like
   `pair:env:narrow_channel` and `pair:env:traffic_lane` are.** `fact:confined_to_channel`
   and `fact:following_traffic_lane` name it, in the same shape as the existing
-  `fact:near_channel` and `fact:obstruction_exists`; entries `9b`, `10i` and
-  `10j` now read `other:fact:confined_to_channel`/`other:fact:following_traffic_lane`
+  `fact:near_channel` and `fact:obstruction_exists`; entries `rule:9b`, `rule:10i` and
+  `rule:10j` now read `other:fact:confined_to_channel`/`other:fact:following_traffic_lane`
   and their `gap` fields are closed. `9(d)` has no entry yet, so it inherits
   the same fact when one is written. **18(d)(i) is deliberately left open**:
   "exhibiting the signals in Rule 28" is a display-compliance fact rather than
@@ -1126,7 +1139,7 @@ named that gap before the class existed.
   CLAUDE.md "Coverage") — settling it is a narrower, separate decision.
 - **Q-35** — 8(f)(iii)'s antecedent is "a vessel, the passage of which is not to
   be impeded" — the *output* of another norm, not a fact. A precedence
-  predicate reads only facts, so entry `8f3` reads the risk-of-collision half
+  predicate reads only facts, so entry `rule:8f_iii` reads the risk-of-collision half
   alone and applies to every pair with risk of collision. Settled by deciding
   whether a norm may read another norm's effect, which is the same question a
   `conduct` monitor will ask about role and phase.
@@ -1138,22 +1151,22 @@ named that gap before the class existed.
   Settled by reading 8(f)(ii) against the cases, not by picking a role.
 - **Q-37** — 13(a) is `classification` in ADR 0005 §1 and in the proposal's
   first-cut table, but it is the one paragraph of Rule 13 that assigns a role
-  and a `classification` entry has nowhere to put one. Entry `13a` is
+  and a `classification` entry has nowhere to put one. Entry `rule:13a` is
   `precedence` here, with 13(b)'s sector test left for the `classification`
   entry that would set the `hist:was_overtaking` latch. Settled with the rest
   of `Q-14`, paragraph by paragraph.
 
   **Closed in pencil 2026-09-04 (PR #26).** 13(b) is now written, as *two*
-  `classification` entries rather than one — `13b-overtaking` and
-  `13b-overtaken` — because the encounter type belongs to the pair and reading
-  aspect alone classified the overtaken vessel's side of the same encounter as
-  a crossing. 13(a) stays `precedence`, and its predicate now carries both
+  `classification` entries rather than one — one per subject — because the
+  encounter type belongs to the pair and reading aspect alone classified the
+  overtaken vessel's side of the same encounter as a crossing. 13(a) stays `precedence`, and its predicate now carries both
   halves of "any vessel overtaking any other": the 13(b) sector and the 13(d)
   latch, as an `any_of`, which closes the gap the entry recorded. 13(d) is a
   third `classification` entry, reading history and no geometry at all. The
   split confirms the thing ADR 0005 §1 was really defending — one category per
-  paragraph — and costs one paragraph two entries, which the entry-id suffix
-  scheme was already built for.
+  paragraph. **Reversed in part, 2026-09-16:** ADR 0015 as rewritten makes
+  13(b) one symmetric entry, `rule:13b`, reading the same sector object on
+  either subject under `any_of`. 13(a) staying `precedence` is untouched.
 - **Q-38** — 9(d), 18(d)(ii), 18(e), 18(f)(ii), 1(a)–(e) and 20(b)–(c) are
   recorded in `known_omissions` rather than modelled: 9(d) needs the channel's
   axis, 18(e) needs a fact for being a seaplane, 20(b)–(c) need time of day,
@@ -1180,7 +1193,7 @@ written up in `docs/identifiers.md` §"Effects"; what it could not is here.
   or an overtaking; Rule 12 says which of them gives way, not what kind of
   meeting it is. 12(b) is a `definition` and is the cite on `kin:wind_side`
   rather than an entry. The second half of the question is narrower and worse:
-  12(a) says "two sailing vessels", which is 3(c), but entries `12a1`–`12a3`
+  12(a) says "two sailing vessels", which is 3(c), but entries the three Rule 12 entries
   read `rule18_class:sail` instead, so a vessel engaged in fishing under sail
   falls out of Rule 12 — because letting her in would have given her a give-way
   duty under 12(a) and a stand-on role under 18(b)(iii) with no override
@@ -1200,7 +1213,7 @@ written up in `docs/identifiers.md` §"Effects"; what it could not is here.
   it: Rule 18's chapeau excepts Rules 9, 10 and 13 and no others, so every
   Rule 18 norm that can be in force between two sailing vessels — 18(b)(i)–(iii)
   from the ordinary sailing vessel's side, 18(c)(i)–(ii) from the fishing
-  vessel's — carries `rel:overrides` against `12a1`–`12a3`. 13(a), being
+  vessel's — carries `rel:overrides` against the three Rule 12 entries. 13(a), being
   "notwithstanding" the whole of Sections I and II, overrides them too, which
   it had to: two sailing vessels in an overtaking held 13(a)'s and 12(a)(ii)'s
   roles at once and nothing had noticed. Two fixtures and a sweep over sailing
@@ -1214,21 +1227,21 @@ written up in `docs/identifiers.md` §"Effects"; what it could not is here.
 
   **Decided in pencil 2026-09-05 (PR #46): Rule 15 reads 3(b), and Rule 18
   overrides it too.** The same question answered the other way for Rule 15.
-  `15a-give-way` kept the four Rule 18 ranks — NUC, RAM, fishing and WIG —
+  `rule:15a:keep_out_of_the_way` kept the four Rule 18 ranks — NUC, RAM, fishing and WIG —
   out of Rule 15 by negating them on both subjects in its own predicate; the
   negation is gone, both subjects gate on `fact:propulsion: propulsion:power`
-  which is 3(b), and `18a1`–`18a3`, `18c1`–`18c2` and `18f1` carry
+  which is 3(b), and the 18(a)(i)–(iii) entries, the two 18(c) entries and `rule:18f_i` carry
   `rel:overrides` against it. The gate was not merely the relation said in
   the wrong place. It produced the right roles wherever Rule 18 speaks and
   *no* role at all where Rule 18 is silent: two vessels engaged in fishing
   under power, and a vessel not under command crossing one restricted in her
   ability to manoeuvre under power, are pairs Rule 18 does not order, and
   neither vessel took a helm role from any entry. Both are fixtures now, and
-  both failed on the data before the change — `15a-crossing` classified the
+  both failed on the data before the change — `rule:15a:crossing` classified the
   encounter and nothing assigned a role. What it leaves is Rule 12's residue
   again: on those unordered pairs Rule 15 lays a give-way duty on a vessel
   that may be unable to discharge it, which is Rule 2's region and is
-  recorded, not gated. `13a` needs no override against `15a-give-way` — the
+  recorded, not gated. `rule:13a` needs no override against `rule:15a:keep_out_of_the_way` — the
   entry excludes every overtaking by the `hist:was_overtaking` latch and by
   13(b)'s sector — and a test pins that absence so it stays a reason rather
   than an oversight. The hand-list of six is asserted complete by a derived
@@ -1269,7 +1282,7 @@ written up in `docs/identifiers.md` §"Effects"; what it could not is here.
   judgement. Settled by deciding whether the vocabulary gains one — `Q-31`'s
   neighbour, not its duplicate.
 - **Q-43** — **The partition needs history to be present, and says nothing when
-  it is absent.** `14b` and `15a-crossing` are gated on `hist:was_overtaking`
+  it is absent.** `rule:14b` and `rule:15a:crossing` are gated on `hist:was_overtaking`
   being `false` on both subjects, which is 13(d)'s requirement and the only way
   the three encounter types stay disjoint once the latch is set. Because absent
   is absent, a situation that omits the fact is classified as *no encounter at
@@ -1307,15 +1320,14 @@ written up in `docs/identifiers.md` §"Effects"; what it could not is here.
   effect of its own. It produces the only effect the entry has: "such a
   situation shall be deemed to exist when…" is the deeming test, and
   `{"encounter": "head-on"}` is what a deeming test yields — exactly as
-  `13b-overtaking` and `13b-overtaken` cite 13(b), the deeming paragraph,
+  `rule:13b` cites 13(b), the deeming paragraph,
   and not 13(a). 14(a) states the situation in words ("reciprocal or nearly
   reciprocal courses") and imposes the duty ("each shall alter her course to
   starboard"); the duty is `conduct`, and the words are what 14(b) makes
-  checkable. So the entry is `14b`, cites 14(b), and reads nothing 14(b) does
+  checkable. So the entry is `rule:14b`, cites 14(b), and reads nothing 14(b) does
   not fix; 14(a) joins `known_omissions` as conduct beside 18(d)(ii), and
-  `14a` is retired in `retired_entry_ids` and, because v0.1.3 shipped it,
-  recorded in `data/deprecated-identifiers.json` with `14b` as its
-  replacement — the registry's first record (REQ-MODEL-11). The
+  the `14a` id it displaced is gone with the rest of the citation-derived ids
+  and leaves no record behind it (ADR 0015). The
   general question — whether a paragraph with no effect of its own gets an
   entry — is `Q-39`'s and is untouched; this paragraph turned out not to be an
   instance of it.
@@ -1323,7 +1335,7 @@ written up in `docs/identifiers.md` §"Effects"; what it could not is here.
   vessel to be overtaking when *coming up with* another from more than 22.5°
   abaft her beam. That is `own:kin:sog_kn` against `other:kin:sog_kn`, and the
   predicate language compares a fact to a constant and never one fact to
-  another — the same wall `12a2` hits on "both have the wind on the same side",
+  another — the same wall `rule:12a_ii` hits on "both have the wind on the same side",
   which it gets over only because that comparison has two values to enumerate
   and this one has infinitely many. `pair:geo:tcpa_s > 0` stands in: the pair
   is closing, and closing from abaft the beam is coming up. It excludes the
@@ -1335,7 +1347,7 @@ written up in `docs/identifiers.md` §"Effects"; what it could not is here.
 - **Q-47** — **13(d)'s latch never clears.** The paragraph runs "until she is
   finally past and clear", nothing in the fact vocabulary carries that, and so
   in this model `hist:was_overtaking` is set by a consumer and cleared by a
-  consumer while entry `13d` classifies an overtaking for as long as it stands.
+  consumer while entry `rule:13d` classifies an overtaking for as long as it stands.
   Not approximated with a range or a bearing: past and clear is a seamanship
   judgement of the same kind as risk of collision, and a threshold for it would
   be a number invented rather than declared. Settled by whatever settles the
@@ -1346,7 +1358,7 @@ written up in `docs/identifiers.md` §"Effects"; what it could not is here.
   test is suppressed on the other, newly-gaining vessel — once overtaking,
   always overtaking, per 13(d)'s own text, so a geometry test that would
   newly name a second give-way vessel must not fire while the first still
-  holds the role by history alone. `13a`'s sector branch now also reads
+  holds the role by history alone. `rule:13a`'s sector branch now also reads
   `other:hist:was_overtaking: false`; the closing fixture in
   `fixtures/situation-fixtures.json` is the case this closes — a vessel
   drops back onto the latch-holder's own stern, and only the latch-holder
@@ -1358,7 +1370,7 @@ written up in `docs/identifiers.md` §"Effects"; what it could not is here.
   fixture — can state a pair of bearings that no two headings produce, and the
   entries will classify it without complaint. It bites in one visible place:
   where both vessels have the other on the starboard side, which cannot happen
-  on a collision course, `15a-give-way` applies to both of them and the "never
+  on a collision course, `rule:15a:keep_out_of_the_way` applies to both of them and the "never
   both give-way" property fails. The fixtures added here are built from a
   heading and a bearing so that they are consistent by construction, and the
   file says so; the model is not. Settled by deciding whether the record gains
@@ -1381,7 +1393,7 @@ written up in `docs/identifiers.md` §"Effects"; what it could not is here.
   and speeds. Two cases could not keep their story: the R1 head-on had both
   vessels with the other to starboard, which no speeds make a steady bearing,
   and is recast as one; the 13(d) latch case is 400 m abeam with the CPA
-  already past, and lost `7d1`. The partition sweep now constructs positions
+  already past, and lost `rule:7d_i`. The partition sweep now constructs positions
   and headings for every bearing pair and is consistent at every point. The
   "never both give-way" property is asserted over a sweep of steady-bearing
   geometries — every relative bearing, several speed pairs, both intercept
@@ -1398,12 +1410,12 @@ written up in `docs/identifiers.md` §"Effects"; what it could not is here.
   the relative quantities as derived facts stays open in the block's
   `settled_by`.
 
-- **Q-49** — **Must `13d`'s effect cross the Section II/III boundary for Rule 19(d)(i) to be expressible?**
-  - *broad* — drop `13d`'s `pair:geo:in_sight` gate so `encounter: overtaking` is visible in Section III; breaks the scope invariant.
-  - *narrow* — `13d` stays gated; a 19(d)(i) entry reads `own:hist:was_overtaking`/`other:hist:was_overtaking` directly, as `14b` and `15a-crossing` already do.
+- **Q-49** — **Must `rule:13d`'s effect cross the Section II/III boundary for Rule 19(d)(i) to be expressible?**
+  - *broad* — drop `rule:13d`'s `pair:geo:in_sight` gate so `encounter: overtaking` is visible in Section III; breaks the scope invariant.
+  - *narrow* — `rule:13d` stays gated; a 19(d)(i) entry reads `own:hist:was_overtaking`/`other:hist:was_overtaking` directly, as `rule:14b` and `rule:15a:crossing` already do.
   - Default: narrow (nothing changes).
   - Recommendation: narrow — the test named below shows the fact resolves out of sight
-    (`Q-49: hist:was_overtaking resolves out of sight; 13d does not fire`, `test/data.test.mjs`).
+    (`Q-49: hist:was_overtaking resolves out of sight; rule:13d does not fire`, `test/data.test.mjs`).
 
 ### From the Part B invariants (P4.1)
 
@@ -1416,21 +1428,30 @@ nothing is blocked while open.
   *Wide:* they attach whenever in sight and the geometry holds — Rule 11 is the
   only gate Section II states — so a vessel overtaking a mile clear abeam is
   give-way and Rule 16 binds her. *Narrow:* Section II's duties attach only with
-  risk of collision; 14 and 15 are emphasis. Default **wide**: `13a`, `13b-*`,
-  `13d` and every Rule 18 entry read `in_sight` only. No recommendation.
+  risk of collision; 14 and 15 are emphasis. Default **wide**: `rule:13a`, `rule:13b`,
+  `rule:13d` and every Rule 18 entry read `in_sight` only. No recommendation.
 - **Q-51** — **What arms 13(d)'s latch?** *A:* 13(b)'s deeming, at the first
   state the geometry holds. *B:* 13(a)'s duty actually attaching. They differ
   where the geometry holds but a condition on 13(a) does not — `Q-50`'s
-  surface. Default **A**: `hist:was_overtaking` is "was, at some earlier point
-  in this encounter, an overtaking vessel" and `13b-overtaking` is geometry.
-  No recommendation; downstream of `Q-50`.
+  surface. Pencilled **B** ✎ (Solace, 2026-09-14): the latch arms when the
+  duty attaches. KIVELI [2025] EWHC 1185 (Admlty) holds the analogous Rule 14
+  latch arms on risk of collision and then persists; no authority was found on
+  overtaking geometry with no risk of collision. Free to reverse: four entries
+  (`rule:13a`, `rule:13b`, `rule:13d`) and their fixtures, and nothing consumes the one
+  state this changes the answer for. Settled by: a decision on Rule 13 itself,
+  or Cockcroft & Lameijer on whether overtaking status needs risk of
+  collision.
 - **Q-52** — **What does 13(d)'s latch forbid?** *Narrow:* reclassification to
   *crossing* only, as the paragraph says, leaving head-on to Rule 14 on the
   geometry of the moment. *Broad:* the encounter stays an overtaking and no
   other Section II classification attaches. Both preserve the duty; they differ
-  on encounter type, which Rule 17's phases and 14(a) hang off. Default
-  **broad**: `13d` yields `encounter: overtaking` from history alone, `14b` and
-  `15a-crossing` gate on `was_overtaking: false`. No recommendation.
+  on encounter type, which Rule 17's phases and 14(a) hang off.
+  Pencilled **broad** ✎ (Solace, 2026-09-14), which is also the data's
+  default: `rule:13d` yields `encounter: overtaking` from history alone, `rule:14b` and
+  `rule:15a:crossing` gate on `was_overtaking: false`. 13(a)'s "notwithstanding"
+  already displaces Rule 14; eCOLREGs states the broad reading as conventional.
+  Settled by: a case or commentary on an overtaking becoming a head-on; none
+  found.
 - **Q-53** — **Does 17(a)(ii) suspend 17(a)(i)'s duty, or add an exception?**
   *Suspension:* "may, however" lifts the duty once non-compliance is apparent;
   a monitor then flags nothing. *Exception:* the duty stands and a departure is
@@ -1456,7 +1477,7 @@ nothing is blocked while open.
   Not in sight *and* not in or near restricted visibility (clear weather, beyond
   visual range, radar contact) is outside Rule 11 and 19(a): Section I only.
   *Hole:* represent it; a fact for "in or near restricted visibility" is owed.
-  *Closed:* treat not-in-sight as Section III. Default **closed**: `19a` drops
+  *Closed:* treat not-in-sight as Section III. Default **closed**: `rule:19a` drops
   the second conjunct, recorded as a `gap`. Recommend **hole**: the default is
   safe for a switching consumer and unsafe for a traceability claim.
 - **Q-57** — **The baseline for "keep her course and speed"?** 17(a)(i) fixes

package/docs/timeline.md

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+# Timeline
+
+When COLREG 1972 changed, and how long each jurisdiction took to catch up.
+Public record, every row cited. Relevant to this package because
+`jurisdiction` (`intl`, `us/inland`, …) is a first-class dimension here, not
+an afterthought — this is the evidence that national texts genuinely lag
+the IMO instrument, by years, and by different amounts per country.
+
+## 1. IMO instrument history
+
+| Date | Event | What changed | Source | Verified? |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1972-10-20 | COLREG 1972 adopted | Replaced 1960 Collision Regs; made TSS mandatory (Rule 10) | [imo.org](https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/COLREG.aspx) | verified |
+| 1977-07-15 | Entry into force | Binding on ratifying states | [imo.org](https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/COLREG.aspx) | verified |
+| 1981-11-19 → 1983-06-01 | 1981 amdts, Res. A.464(XII) | Rule 10: exempted safety-operation and cable-laying vessels in TSS | [imo.org](https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/preventing-collisions.aspx) | verified |
+| 1987-11-19 → 1989-11-19 | 1987 amdts, Res. A.626(15) | New Rule 1(e), 8(f); Rule 3(h) def.; Rule 10(c) clarified; Annexes I & IV updated (light positions, GMDSS) | [imo.org](https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/preventing-collisions.aspx) | verified |
+| 1989-10-19 → 1991-04-19 | 1989 amdts, Res. A.678(16) | Rule 10: further restricted inshore-traffic-zone use | [imo.org](https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/preventing-collisions.aspx) | verified |
+| 1993-11-04 → 1995-11-04 | 1993 amdts, Res. A.736(18) | Light-positioning rules revised; Annex IV gained SART signals | [imo.org](https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/preventing-collisions.aspx) | verified |
+| 2001-11-29 → 2003-11-29 | 2001 amdts, Res. A.910(22) | Added Wing-in-Ground (WIG) craft: Rule 3 def., Rules 8(a),18,23,31,33,35; Annex I & III updates | [imo.org](https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/preventing-collisions.aspx) | verified |
+| 2007-11-29 → 2009-12-01 | 2007 amdts, Res. A.1004(25) | Annex IV (distress signals) replaced wholesale: added DSC, Inmarsat, EPIRB signals | [imo.org](https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/preventing-collisions.aspx) | verified |
+| 2013-12-04 → 2016-01-01 | 2013 amdts, Res. A.1085(28) | New Part F (Rules 39–41) appended: compulsory Member State Audit Scheme verification | [imo.org](https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/safety/pages/preventing-collisions.aspx) | verified |
+
+No amendment adopted since 2013; autonomous-ship ("MASS") work is ongoing but has not produced one — [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_International_Regulations_for_Preventing_Collisions_at_Sea).
+
+**Renumbering:** none of the seven amendments renumbers or deletes an existing rule; each adds a paragraph, a definition, or (2013) an appended Part. Annex IV's 2007 replacement kept its number and position.
+
+**Languages:** Article IX makes English and French "equally authentic"; Russian and Spanish are official translations, not authentic text — [Convention text, CIL NUS](https://cil.nus.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/1972-Convention-on-Regulations-for-Preventing-Collisions-at-Sea.pdf), verified. IMO's own official languages (for documents generally, not this treaty) are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish — [imo.org](https://www.imo.org/en/About/Conventions/Pages/COLREG.aspx), verified.
+
+## 2. National instruments
+
+### United States
+
+| Date | Event | What changed | Source | Verified? |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1977 | Int'l Navigation Rules Act of 1977 | Adopted COLREG 1972 for international waters | [FR 2014-14413](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/07/02/2014-14413/changes-to-the-inland-navigation-rules) | verified |
+| enacted 1980-12-24, eff. 1981-12-24 | Inland Navigational Rules Act, Pub. L. 96-591 | Created a separate, COLREG-modeled U.S. Inland Rules | [Pub. L. 96-591](https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/navRules/PLaw_96_591_%2094%20_Stat_3415_1980_Inland_Navigation_Rules.pdf) | verified |
+| 2010-04-15 | 75 FR 19544 | Moved Inland Rules from U.S. Code to 33 CFR 83–88; future changes by rulemaking, not statute | [FR 2014-14413](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/07/02/2014-14413/changes-to-the-inland-navigation-rules) | verified |
+| 2014-08-01 | Final rule, "Changes to the Inland Navigation Rules" | Incorporated the 2001 & 2007 IMO amendments (WIG craft, new Annex IV); renumbered the CFR to track COLREG rule numbers | [FR 2014-14413](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2014/07/02/2014-14413/changes-to-the-inland-navigation-rules) | verified |
+
+### United Kingdom
+
+| Date | Event | What changed | Source | Verified? |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1996-05-01 | SI 1996/75 in force | Domestic effect for COLREG as then amended | [legislation.gov.uk](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/75/made) | verified |
+| 2004-05-28 | MSN 1781 first published | MCA notice carrying the technical Rules text | [gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/msn-1781-distress-signals-and-preventing-collisions) | verified |
+| 2016 | MSN 1781 Amendment 2 | Reissued, superseding the original | [gov.uk PDF](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5dfa3bcced915d54a89bd4ab/MSN1781_Amendment2_2016.pdf) | date verified; which IMO round it applies unverified |
+| 2023-11-21 | MSN 1781 Amendment 3 | Non-COLREG: scope re Watercraft Order 2023 | [gov.uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/msn-1781-mf-amendment-3-the-merchant-shipping-regulations-1996-colreg) | verified |
+
+### Canada
+
+| Date | Event | What changed | Source | Verified? |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1978 base | Collision Regs, C.R.C. c. 1416 | Incorporates COLREG "with Canadian Modifications" | [Justice Laws](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/) | verified |
+| ongoing | SOR/78-528, SOR/83-202, etc. | Periodic amendments track IMO and add Canadian mods | [publications.gc.ca](https://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/9.662001/publication.html) | verified |
+| 2023-06-07 | Most recent amendment | Current to 2026-07-21, last amended 2023-06-07 | [Justice Laws](https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/C.R.C.,_c._1416/page-4.html) | verified |
+
+### Finland
+
+| Date | Event | What changed | Source | Verified? |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1977, SopS 30/1977 | Decree bringing COLREG 1972 into force | Ratified 1977-01-28 | [Finlex](https://finlex.fi/fi/sopimukset/sopsteksti/1977/19770030) | verified |
+| 1983-07-04 | Decree incorporating the 1981 amdts | Applied Res. A.464(XII) | [Finlex](https://finlex.fi/fi/sopimukset/sopsteksti/1983/19830037) | verified |
+| approved 2008-12-19, force 2009-12-01 | Decree incorporating the 2007 amdts | Applied Res. A.1004(25); domestic entry into force matches the global date exactly | [Finlex](https://finlex.fi/fi/valtiosopimukset/sopimussarja/2009/12) | verified |
+
+### Spain
+
+| Date | Event | What changed | Source | Verified? |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1977-07-09 | BOE publishes accession instrument | Corrections followed in 1978 and 1981 | [BOE-A-1977-15605](https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1977-15605) | verified |
+| adopted 2001-11-29, BOE pub. 2003-02-11, eff. 2003-11-29 | 2001 amdts (A.910(22)) | BOE publication preceded the global entry into force by ~9 months | [BOE-A-2003-2716](https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2003-2716) | verified |
+| adopted 2007-11-29, BOE pub. 2010-03-20, eff. 2009-12-01 | 2007 amdts (A.1004(25)) | BOE publication came ~3.5 months *after* the global entry into force | [BOE-A-2010-4648](https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2010-4648) | verified |
+
+### Germany
+
+| Date | Event | What changed | Source | Verified? |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| enacted 1976-06-29 | Ratification statute, BGBl. 1976 II S. 1017 | Approved German accession | [dejure.org](https://dejure.org/BGBl/1976/BGBl._II_S._1017) | verified |
+| announced 1977-06-01, eff. 1977-07-15 | Bekanntmachung of entry into force | Matches the global date | [gesetze-im-internet.de](https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/seestro1972_bk/SeeStrO1972%C3%9Cbk.pdf) | verified |
+| through the 2013 amdt (28th Assembly) | Ordinance updating the Convention annex | Cites the IMO Assembly session directly, not re-legislated | [buzer.de](https://www.buzer.de/gesetz/5250/a72559.htm) | verified |
+
+### Australia
+
+| Date | Event | What changed | Source | Verified? |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 2009-12-01 | Marine Orders Part 30, Issue 8 | Repealed Issue 7; timed to match the 2007 amdts' entry into force, same day | [PDF](https://www.marinerescueportjackson.com.au/ddlfiles/colregs.pdf) | verified |
+| 2016-07-19 | Marine Order 30 (2016) | Remade under the Navigation Act 2012, replacing the 1912 Act | [legislation.gov.au](https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2016L01187/asmade) | verified |
+
+### Europe, inland — CEVNI
+
+| Date | Event | What changed | Source | Verified? |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1962 (Res. 4); refounded as Res. 24, 1985-11-15 | Original / refounding resolution | UNECE code adapting COLREG-style rules for inland waterways | [waterways.cz PDF](https://waterways.cz/documents/European_Code_for_Inland_Waterways_E.pdf) | verified |
+| 2009 | CEVNI Rev. 4 | ECE/TRANS/SC.3/115/Rev.4 | [UN Digital Library](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1489444) | verified |
+| 2015 | CEVNI Rev. 5 | ECE/TRANS/SC.3/115/Rev.5 | [UN Digital Library](https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1489444) | verified |
+| 2022 Rev. 6; Amdt 1 in 2025-04 | CEVNI Rev. 6 and first amendment | Latest edition; the amendment issued separately | [UNECE](https://unece.org/transport/documents/2025/04/standards/cevni-european-code-inland-waterways-resolution-no-24) | Rev. 6's 2022 date unverified (year only); Amdt 1 date verified |
+
+## 3. Cadence
+
+- **IMO gap between amendments:** seven amendments, 1981–2013 — 6y, 2y, 4y, 8y (max, 1993→2001), 6y, 6y. Mean ≈5.3y. None since 2013.
+- **National lag varies by country and by amendment, not on a fixed schedule.** Finland and Australia both brought the 2007 amendments into force on 1 Dec 2009 — the same day as the global date. The U.S. did not incorporate the 2001 and 2007 amendments until an August 2014 rule: 13- and 7-year lags on the same two rounds.
+- **Gazette date can trail legal effect.** Spain's 2007-amendment text was published in the BOE on 20 Mar 2010, ~3.5 months after it was already binding (1 Dec 2009) — a publishing lag, not two rule-numbering schemes concurrently in force. No case of the latter was found (absence not proven).
+- **Citation style differs by country:** Spain and Finland cite the IMO resolution number and dates directly; the U.S. and Canada cite Federal Register/SOR numbers plus a "current to" date; the UK cites an SI number plus an MSN amendment; CEVNI cites a revision plus amendment number.

package/docs/verification/2026-09-09-text-slug-straw-man.md

@@ -5,8 +5,9 @@ text, and names a slug as a straw man to be built and judged rather than
 argued about. This is the build and the judgement. The research issue is
 colregs#83; nothing here decides the pencil item.
 
-Everything below is reproducible from `scripts/text-slug.mjs` over
-`data/rules.json` at this commit. Nothing was written into `data/`.
+Everything below is reproducible from `scripts/text-slug.mjs` over the
+en-US corpus (`data/text/intl/2016/en-US.uscg.json` since ADR 0013 moved the
+words out of `data/rules.json`). Nothing was written into `data/`.
 
 ## What the pipeline does