`calibrate.rs` claimed its positive pairs came from user confirmations "then
burst siblings, since FR-CULL-5 already groups bursts", and repeated it beside
the pair floor: "the positives are bootstrapped from bursts and a handful of
early confirmations". Neither is true and neither ever has been. Nothing in
the workspace pushes a burst pair into a `Pairs`; nothing pushes any pair at
all outside this file's own tests. The sentence was written while both halves
of docs/faces.md §8.1 were being planned together, describing a source that
was going to exist, and it has read since as a description of what the code
does.
The distinction matters more here than in most comments, because this file is
the one place in the subsystem allowed to say what a similarity *means*. A
reader who believes the fit is drawing on bursts believes a young library is
gathering positives on its own, which is precisely the opposite of the state
FR-CULL-9 legislates for — a library with no fit, no valid calibration, and a
reference curve it must not present as a measurement of itself. The floor of
200 positive pairs looks arbitrary under the wrong story and obvious under the
right one: confirmations arrive one at a time, from a person.
So the comment now says what is here — a positive is a pair confirmed onto one
person, and there is no second source — and keeps the burst idea where it
belongs, as §8.1's proposal, with the two reasons it is not in the code: this
crate is handed cosines and cannot see a catalog, and the purity of a burst
pair is a thing to measure before it is a thing to trust.
No behaviour changes; the arithmetic is untouched.
dtourolle
43652bd613