TheRON
bc291822e1
DIV-005 is withdrawn. It claimed requirements-cad.txt declared a CAD dependency set that was not installed. Verified in CT 100 today: cadquery and OCP both import from the venv. build123d does not, and correctly so - requirements-cad.txt names it as a viable alternative on the same OCCT kernel, not as an installed package. The file declares one requirement, cadquery greater-or-equal 2.4, and it is satisfied. The manifest and the container agree. The false statement was in HANDOFF section 5, which said no CAD kernel is installed and that cadquery, OCP and build123d are all absent. True when written on 19 AUG, carried forward by hand for three weeks. STAGING-STATE section 5 recorded cadquery 2.8.0 in the venv for the same period. Two documents, each stating it as fact, disagreeing, and neither noticing. The entry was recorded backwards: it named the manifest as diverging from the container when the container matched the manifest and a third document was wrong about both. Its evidence was a session record rather than an observation, which is why it carried do-not-close, and that marking is the only reason this was checked instead of acted on. The index note is corrected from three-of-six to two-of-six. A roadmap item was deprioritised on the same false premise. HANDOFF section 4 listed STEP export as needing a CAD kernel that was not installed. It is installed. STAGING-STATE section 5 opened with a transcribed repository block: HEAD at the seed commitc7e32d8, tests 3 passed and 236 skipped, and absent the Shapely port itself. All three were true on 18 AUG and none after 20 AUG, while the checklist directly below was kept current. Facts three weeks apart in one section, the maintained half lending credibility to the stale half. Removed rather than corrected. One line in it was still accurate - the venv cadquery 2.8.0 - and it was the only correct statement about the CAD kernel in the repository when it was deleted. Section 3a said Kane Fabric is where SASE, HOA Diagnostics, the Mechanical Compiler and other SASE-consuming projects are implemented. Nothing here is implemented on Kane Fabric. Each project has its own FQDN and container and they share the bridge, the hub and the proxy. SASE was used and never defined anywhere in this repository. Section 3a also said no interface between the two projects exists and none is assumed; IDENTITY-CONTRACT.md specifies one. Section 4 gave AllowedIPs on the hub peer entry for srv-b as 10.110.0.0/22, four paragraphs after correctly giving it as 10.110.0.12/32. The 22 is srv-b own AllowedIPs for the hub, recorded in section 1. The two ends of one tunnel were conflated, in the paragraph describing the security boundary. WORK-ORDER-004 section 0 settles it: all twenty peers carry a 32. Also: the toolchain image box is ticked, verified present in CT 100. The baseline result is marked overdue against DIV-006. The Shapely port gates nothing. HANDOFF rewrap owed from61b8f1eis applied. Read-only verification was run before writing, per PROCESS section 2. Had it not been, this commit would have deleted the one true CAD statement and left the false one standing. Suite 643 passed, oracle intact. Documentation only.
Mechanical Compiler
Build the capacity to construct real structures from reclaimed and commodity materials, using whatever fabrication is actually to hand — 3D printing, tabletop CNC, welding, cement casting, COTS stock.
The reference case is a faceted timber shell: planar panels meeting along straight fold lines, converging on nodes, sitting on a platform. Buildable without a factory, provided someone has worked out what the pieces are and how they meet. That last clause is the project. The Mechanical Compiler exists to make the pieces computable, qualifiable, and reproducible by someone who was not present when they were designed.
Scope
In scope: geometry, qualification, and reproducibility of structural members and their interfaces.
Not in scope: building codes, permitting, jurisdictional approval. Qualification and compliance are different things. A qualification says this member is what it claims to be, made this way, from this stock. Compliance is a jurisdiction-specific argument someone else may build on top.
The project records physical claims, never verdicts — section modulus, moment of inertia, material provenance, process parameters. Those are what any future argument would need. A pass/fail verdict would bake in a jurisdiction we do not want to be bound to. Measure and attest; never adjudicate.
Repository layout
docs/ specification, state, failure log, roadmap
legacy/openscad/ rev 8.0.0 generators — reference, not a live target
fixtures/ frozen acceptance oracles
tools/reference-toolchain/ pinned OpenSCAD + BOSL2, build-time only
src/mechcomp/ the application
tests/ acceptance against the oracle
Read docs/ROADMAP.md first for what this is, then docs/ENVIRONMENT.md for
how an instance is built. If you are writing provisioning automation, read
docs/FAILURES.md before the specification — every entry is something a
script written from the specification alone would have got wrong.
Getting started
make deps # virtualenv, base + CAD requirements
make verify-oracle # confirm the frozen oracle is intact
make test # pytest -n auto
make verify-oracle needs nothing but Python. It should pass on any machine at
any time; if it does not, stop.
The oracle
fixtures/strap-beam-8.0.0/ holds 123 frozen cases — 113 accepted, 10
rejected — produced by OpenSCAD 2021.01 with BOSL2 at 92d697c2. It is the
acceptance criterion for any reimplementation of the generators.
The ten rejected cases are part of the contract. A port that accepts them is wrong, however good its numbers look elsewhere. It is easy to reproduce the geometry and quietly lose the constraint that made it trustworthy.
The generators under legacy/openscad/ are the reference implementation, kept
so the oracle can be regenerated. They are not a live target and the running
application has no OpenSCAD dependency.
Provenance
This project's documents, code and roadmap are LLM-generated under human direction. That is stated plainly here and in any downstream submission. We do not obscure it.
The maintainer reviews and owns every line. Anything that could not be defended in a review thread does not ship.
Licence
AGPL-3.0-or-later. See LICENSE.
Section 13 obliges us to offer source to users interacting over a network, so any deployed web tier carries a visible link back to this repository. That is a licence obligation, not a courtesy.