The tolerance fix in r2 named the room's nearest polygon vertex as the point
of contact, which silently excluded the T-junction — a partition meeting the
middle of a room wall. That is a documented product case (141-wall-junctions
§13.1) and the code already measures distance to the edge, not the vertex
(distToSegment over roomEdges). Merging would have run straight through a
legitimate node.
AC2 now proves the room case with a T-junction into the middle of a long
side, and a mutant restores the vertex-only search.
Issue: #229
User-Visible: no
M1: "merge across the whole space when a chain ends" quietly overreached the
owner's split — drawing fixes its own seam, the optimiser fixes what has piled
up, and only the latter comes with a report and an undo. Section 8.6 now scopes
it to the connected component the new chain belongs to.
M2: the tolerance for "something else meets here" was only defined for a
partition-to-partition joint. Room edges, columns and drafts now use the same
EPS_JOIN — a gap cannot be a junction in one case and not in another.
M3: an opening also carries a materialised x/y/angle projection that
CONFIG-COMPATIBILITY (#132) requires to stay in step with its host, and the
code already re-materialises it after every host change. Merging is such a
change; AC3 now fails if only host.t is recomputed and the projection goes
stale.
Issue: #229
User-Visible: no
Written on the owner's decisions of 2026-08-21: merge as the chain is
finished, sweep already-drawn plans from "Optimise plans", and keep merging
even when an opening sits on the seam.
The part that is easy to miss is that last one. An opening stores its
position as a fraction of its host's length, so merging two partitions
changes the length under it and moves the door unless the fraction is
recomputed. AC3 therefore checks the door's coordinates in plan units, not
that a field was rewritten.
Issue: #229
User-Visible: no
The assumptions section is explicitly labelled "technical, free to change",
and it held a requirement that AC3 and a mutant already test as a fact. Read
literally, it invited splitting the write in two — reopening the very window
in which markers move. The point now states the opposite: everything else in
that section is free, this one is normative and lives in section 8.3.
Issue: #220
User-Visible: no
M1: the spec now carries the touch classification TOUCH-SUPPORT.md asks every
editor feature for — "Touch editor: not exposed", with the reason it is a
decision rather than an omission.
M2: the first draft denied adding a config field in one section while planning
to store an anchor in settings in another. Resolved by dropping the anchor:
reordering materialises the placement that was implicit, giving those markers
an explicit space in the same write. No new field, no schema change, and the
marker stays exactly where the user saw it.
Issue: #220
User-Visible: no
Written on the owner's product decisions of 2026-08-20: mouse only and only in
the editor modes, one warning about the positional `floor` from #210, no
keyboard alternative.
The spec carries the part that is easy to miss — the order of `config.spaces`
is not decoration. It feeds the marker placement fallback, the swipe
neighbour and the numeric `floor`, so reordering tabs must not move a single
marker. That is a named acceptance criterion with a mutant behind it.
Issue: #220
User-Visible: no
Codex