228 ruff findings to 0 across the notebook, its partial export and twm.py, and
mypy --strict is clean on both .py files.
A notebook is a deliverable that happens to contain code, so the check that
mattered was not "does it still run" -- it needs a GPU, MNIST, CIFAR-10 and a
slice of Quick, Draw! to run at all -- but "is anything except the code still
exactly as submitted". Hashing every key of the .ipynb EXCEPT cell `source`
gives 60242e116d12549d11c93f7f before the first edit and after the last one,
across four passes and a `ruff format`. The file also round-trips byte-for-byte
through json.dumps(indent=1, ensure_ascii=False), which is what made editing
cells programmatically safe rather than a reformat of all 141 of them; the
diff touches 38.
print() became sys.stdout.write() rather than logging. In a notebook the print
IS the output, and a logger with no handler configured would have silently
emptied every cell -- the exact regression scripts/check_refactor_safety.py
was written for. matprint's `print(x, end=" ")` and bare `print()` are
preserved as writes with and without a trailing newline.
Both `show_samples` and `show_samples_rgb` took (indices, preds, images,
labels, count, names), which is six arguments and a mutable default. They now
take a frozen `Samples` holding the last four, which also removed the same
four-value tuple from seven call sites. Reviewing that diff is how I caught
that I had transcribed `real_score = preds[sample][real_id]` as
`samples.labels[sample]` -- a bug I introduced and then fixed before commit.
Other real things, not just rule satisfaction: `np.in1d` is removed in NumPy 2
(NPY201) and is now `np.isin(...).ravel()`; `test_model` computed
correct_indices and incorrect_indices and used neither; two cells grew `img`
inside a loop so it was only bound by the `else` branch; and the Quick, Draw!
downloader now builds a URL whose https scheme is a literal, which is what
S310 was asking for.
The README claimed the .py was "an nbconvert export of that notebook". It is
an export of the CIFAR-10 section only -- 28 of 81 code cells -- and has been
edited since. It says that now, and says the two are separate artifacts rather
than one being regenerable from the other.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Five files were outside README / CLAUDE* / DOCS* / TODO*, and two were over
the 250-line cap. Both gates now pass repo-wide.
Renames: the two lowercase readme.md files, and three documents into DOCS-*.
The AIS requirements doc split at its own boundary into functional (101) and
non-functional (174). The WDWR report split into six numbered sections behind
an index that keeps the original filename, 38-235 lines each; 753 lines of
body plus the 18-line header account for all 771 original lines, so nothing
was dropped.
That WDWR file needed checking before splitting: it sits next to main.tex and
main.pdf and looked like a conversion of them. It is not -- main.tex is
project 25406 and the markdown is project 18402, a different document. So it
is authored content and the split is real work, not churn on a build artifact.
Filled the three empty READMEs and replaced ECOTE's, which was a stale copy of
the root README still claiming the group projects were excluded -- they were
merged in by subtree some time ago.
EOPSY/lab1 turned out not to be the code-free directory the survey suggested:
it has modify.sh and modify_examples.sh. The oddly-named empty files beside
them are the exercise's OUTPUT, committed so the before/after state is
visible, and its README now says so rather than leaving them looking like junk.
CLAUDE.md follows the testsAndMisc structure. Writing it caught a nice one:
the md-naming marker is a biconditional, so quoting the literal removal string
in a non-TODO file fails the gate. The gate was right; the text is rephrased.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_0172dj34FDpao6wsix8ZuCzE
