The 500-line rule and the one-line-comment rule were enforced only from
memory, so they drifted. bench/filesize_check.py now checks the budget on
every tracked source file, and it passes.
Split, with behaviour proven unchanged by comparing each moved function body
against HEAD byte for byte (53 training bodies, 21 benchmark bodies, 0
differences):
db.py 503 -> 396 store_search.py 105
bench/run.py 609 -> 351 query_set.py 80, report.py 211
benchmarks.py 619 -> 424 benchmark_scoring.py 262
training.py 1630 -> 94 training_{common,encode,metrics,datasets,lora,retrieval}
TrainingService stays as a thin facade for the CLI; the facade's parameter
lists are pinned against the module functions by inspect, which is what
catches a leaked self.
Deleted the eight top-level functions no file called, after fixing the scan
that had reported 201 false positives by skipping the defining file. The
v1/v2/v3 sweep found nothing to delete and says so: every remaining version
tag is an on-disk format marker, a migration step, a fixture name, or a
third-party model name.
Collapsed 39 multi-line comment blocks (86 lines) to one line each, keeping
the measured facts and error strings that justify the code.
269 tests pass; ruff clean; mypy 24 errors in 9 files against a 24-in-6
baseline, net zero; pyright 4, the same four HEAD measures.
A memory system that only answers from its own store is a filing cabinet,
not a partner. The transactive rule the project is named for — not knowing
is fine when you know who does — needed a holder registry, a directory
query, and a referral that never leaks the text it may not read.
- schema v5 adds `holders` (person/agent/service, declared topics, contact).
A holder with memories exists whether or not anybody registered them; the
registry adds reachability, it does not grant existence.
- `who_knows` ranks holders by their own memories and is deliberately NOT
filtered by visibility: "she knows" is the answer. The answer is filtered.
- `ask` searches the asker's visible scope first (hop 0), then walks the
directory with a visited set and a hop budget. Three terminal states:
answered, referred, no_holder_knows. Nobody knowing is a result, not an error.
- Confidence is ordinal, not calibrated: relative strength, coverage, and
declared topics. Every hit carries the raw numbers and the basis lines that
produced the score, so a ranking can be argued with.
- Faces: HTTP (/api/holders, /api/who_knows, /api/ask), CLI (holders,
holder-set, holder-rm, who-knows, ask), MCP (who_knows, ask, list_holders).
Four bugs found by running the thing, not by reading it:
- FTS5 refuses bm25() inside MAX(); the aggregate uses FTS5's own `rank` column.
- A CJK question is longer than the sentence that answers it, so the whole-run
phrase matched nothing. The query now ORs adjacent bigram phrases; adjacency
is kept, equal length is not. Latin path untouched, baseline unaffected.
- The hop budget counted the asker as a hop, so max_hops=1 asked nobody.
- A second, stricter readability test in _answered() disagreed with the SQL
visibility clause and hid a memory the asker was allowed to read. The SQL
clause is the only authority now.
A method named `list` shadowed the builtin inside its own class and made
mypy reject the return annotation; renamed rather than cast around it.
Proof: 155 pytest, 12 Go tests, ruff and mypy clean on touched files, pyright
ledger unchanged at 62, and scripts/mcp_write_smoke.sh drives two principals
on one SQLite file — the husband asks through MCP, gets `referred` with his
wife's contact channel, and her private sentence appears nowhere in the reply.
ZacharyZhang-NY