TheRON
ee3fedf794
Kane Fabric recorded a gate register against this project at its 5df8801. This is the same instrument pointed the other way, plus the defects that review found in our own contract. A gate is a disagreement, an unmade decision, or an assumption two projects hold differently and have not had to reconcile. Recording one is not scheduling work on it. The failure this prevents is specific: when two systems meet, the pull is to fix the mismatch immediately, usually by one side quietly adopting the other's model in a commit that looks like integration and is actually a surrendered boundary. G-1 and G-2 are the two defects, corrected in the previous commit and recorded here because the class of mistake will recur. G-3 is the one that does not dissolve. This compiler records a stable identifier in a document built to stay legible for years; the civic direction is address-bound, opaque, epoch-scoped participation that deliberately avoids durable person identity. The mechanical part is already free -- Author.email takes an opaque token without a schema change. What remains is that a record naming a token whose epoch has closed has an author line nobody can ever resolve again. That may be exactly right as privacy policy and is still a permanent loss of provenance for a physical object somebody is holding. Two goods in conflict, owned jointly, settled by neither side writing its document second. G-4 and G-5 are the residue of the two new invariants: nothing verifies that exactly one hop decides, and fail-closed makes the eligibility endpoint a hard dependency of every gated route. Both recorded rather than designed around. G-6 notes that a shape is not a vocabulary -- two deployments can comply and still disagree about what "verified" means, which is tolerable only while the record states the method verbatim and claims nothing beyond it. N-1 through N-4 record what was raised against us that is correctly not ours: buildings against delivery-point geography, the local secure origin MS5-004 needs, the wg-pk fleet question, and credential hierarchies. Written down so a successor does not mistake them for work or rediscover them as new. Section 4 records that both projects independently drew the same junction -- geography, then a membership system, then a minimal decision, then this compiler, one direction only. That is the strongest evidence available that the shape is right. It also states where the two must not meet: if this compiler ever reads parcels, delivery points or buildings, the membership layer has been bypassed and every gate here is void.
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.