029: range()'s chain written, and two of its own claims taken back: the executor 14,488 machine instructions a point, stitched 8,144, emitted exact 2,474, with integers 1,587, a flat column 1,083, both 226, C 129 (dispatch 1.78x, memory slots and the call's machinery 3.29x, the numbers' and lists' form 10.9x, bounds and budget 1.75x C); the bar set before (3x C's round) missed by exact (217) and passed by both (19.8); the premises checked: an unchanged list proven (function_changes), a whole-number index not (number slots, INDEX_AT checks it: a fact for the proof to take on), a local's lifetime not tested here; "no layer holds most, each 1.4-1.5x" and the let lists' "broken by arithmetic" were shares inside the executor, not factors; "one machine instruction an instruction is 2.5x C" was wrong (both does 269.5 in 226); what is bundled (memory slots with the call), the flat column's cost moved to changes (unmeasured), and 36% of the app only

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions